Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion for Reconsideration in Farrar-Judy v. Obama-Kemp Georgia Superior Crt.

Motion for Reconsideration in Farrar-Judy v. Obama-Kemp Georgia Superior Crt.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,801|Likes:
Published by Freedom&Liberty
Motion for Reconsideration in Farrar-Judy v. Obama- Kemp to either remove Obama from the Ballot or include Cody Robert Judy based on bias and prejudice of the Order by Judge Cynthia D. Wright
Motion for Reconsideration in Farrar-Judy v. Obama- Kemp to either remove Obama from the Ballot or include Cody Robert Judy based on bias and prejudice of the Order by Judge Cynthia D. Wright

More info:

Published by: Freedom&Liberty on Mar 05, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





CODY ROBERT JUDYPro Se3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite 2Ogden, UT. 84403(801)497-6655Email:codyjudy@hotmail.com Web Site:www.codyjudy.us  ___________________________________________________________________ FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTSTATE OF GEORGIA __________________________________________________________ DAVID FARRAR, EMERGENCYCODY ROBERT JUDY, EXPARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONTO RESPONSE TOMOTION TO DISMISSW/EXHIBIT I.Petitioner(s),v.
Case #
2012-CV-211398BARACK OBAMA, Judge: Cynthia D. WrightSECRETARY OF STATERespondent(s). ___________________________________________________________ COMES NOW, Petitioner(s), CODY ROBERT JUDY pro se, and DAVID FARRAR,also pro se, and submits respectfully to the Fulton County Superior Court this, ³EMERGENCYEXPARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO RESPONSE TO MOTION TODISMISS´ W/EXHIBIT I.
Judge Cynthia D. Wright made an Order on March 2
, 2012 that granted theRespondent¶s Motion To Dismiss.2-
Within the Order was a statement that all the Responses to the Motion to Dismiss were³exactly the same´.
Petitioner(s) ³Response to Motion to Dismiss´ was not considered because it was entirelydifferent than the other two cases submitting Oppositions to the Motion to Dismiss.
Judge Wright¶s decision has lumped 3 distinct cases together that ultimately weredifferent and stated in the Order that all 3 Motions To Dismiss were the samewhich has biased Petitioner Cody Robert Judy from accessing the Primary Ballotas a Candidate for President in the Georgia Primary favoring the anointing of Obama and monolithic control of Party Leaders over the open primary voters inGeorgia pay for in State funds with no choice for another candidate who herein islegally fighting to get on the Ballot.a.
Petitioner¶s first 10 pages of the ³Response to Motion to Dismiss´ wereentirely different than the other two cases showing the argument for aPresidential Candidate within the bounds of ³competitive standing´. b.
Petitioner¶s submitted March 2
,2012 in the Response to Motion toDismiss ³Compelling´ evidence released March 1
of findings from a lawenforcement¶s Cold Case Posse who did a 6
month investigation andreleased March 1
,2012 probably cause Obama¶s Eligibilitydocumentation was forged and fraudulent that was released to the general public as well as his draft registration.2-
Cody Robert Judy¶s ability to be on the ballot has precedent standing.
 Rockefeller ll,
917 F. Supp. at 164. &
460 U.S. at 803 n.30).
Given the fact that both options were equally suited to prevent party splinteringor extreme factionalism, the only possible interest underlying theRepublicans' choice, as the court saw it, was to advantage the Republican StateCommittee's favored nominee. That additional increment of power aggrandize-ment (or some might say, autonomy) for the party elite could not be fabricatedinto a state interest. Citing
 Anderson v. Celebrezze,
a case in which thetwo incumbent parties allegedly constructed ballot access rules thatdisadvantaged independent candidates, the court rejected the argument that a party could use the state in order to "assure monolithic control over its ownmembers and supporters" and denied that the "particular interests of themajor parties can. b-
Although at the primary all candidates are members of the same party, theyrepresent different political ideas and have different qualifications for nationaland party leadership .... In politics, one challenges establishments in primaries, not elections .... If discriminatory requirements prevent--candidates from obtaining -- place on the ballot and delegates pledged to them,then the primary becomes little more than a state-sponsored endorsement of thecandidate of the party leadership.
In both cases, the court rejected almost out of hand any
interest infiltering out its disfavored candidates, let alone a
interest in giving the party the right to define its own membership. Applying the precedentinvolving general election ballot access laws, the New York courts, like those

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Bilovisso Sanspoul added this note|
Blaming the victim.
Esmirelda added this note|
wow. I've heard rumors, but she is a very bad lawyer.
MrPlutodog added this note|
Damn, Cody sounds to me like you have grounds to file against Orly for her poor dob of representing you with the California Bar Association. They don't want to see legal clients abused or insulted by imperious, self-absorbed, incompetent, or crooked attorneys.
Helen_Fayn_8635 liked this
Jack Ryan liked this
silverbull8 liked this
Jack Ryan 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)//-->