CODY ROBERT JUDY Pro Se 3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite 2 Ogden, UT.

84403 (801)497-6655 Email: Web Site: ___________________________________________________________________ FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF GEORGIA __________________________________________________________ DAVID FARRAR, CODY ROBERT JUDY, EMERGENCY EXPARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS W/EXHIBIT I.

Petitioner(s), v. BARACK OBAMA, SECRETARY OF STATE Respondent(s). Case # 2012-CV-211398 Judge: Cynthia D. Wright


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, ³EMERGENCY EXPARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS´ W/EXHIBIT I. RELATED FACTS 1- Judge Cynthia D. Wright made an Order on March 2nd, 2012 that granted the Respondent¶s Motion To Dismiss. 2- Within the Order was a statement that all the Responses to the Motion to Dismiss were ³exactly the same´.


3- Petitioner(s) ³Response to Motion to Dismiss´ was not considered because it was entirely different than the other two cases submitting Oppositions to the Motion to Dismiss.


1- Judge Wright¶s decision has lumped 3 distinct cases together that ultimately were different and stated in the Order that all 3 Motions To Dismiss were the same which has biased Petitioner Cody Robert Judy from accessing the Primary Ballot as a Candidate for President in the Georgia Primary favoring the anointing of Obama and monolithic control of Party Leaders over the open primary voters in Georgia pay for in State funds with no choice for another candidate who herein is legally fighting to get on the Ballot. a. Petitioner¶s first 10 pages of the ³Response to Motion to Dismiss´ were entirely different than the other two cases showing the argument for a Presidential Candidate within the bounds of ³competitive standing´. b. Petitioner¶s submitted March 2nd,2012 in the Response to Motion to Dismiss ³Compelling´ evidence released March 1st of findings from a law enforcement¶s Cold Case Posse who did a 6th month investigation and released March 1st,2012 probably cause Obama¶s Eligibility documentation 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 l l , 917 F. Supp. at 164. & /d. (quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. at 803 n.30).



Given the fact that both options were equally suited to prevent party splintering or extreme factionalism, the only possible interest underlying the Republicans' choice, as the court saw it, was to advantage the Republican State Committee's favored nominee. That additional increment of power aggrandizement (or some might say, autonomy) for the party elite could not be fabricated into a state interest. Citing Anderson v. Celebrezze, a case in which the two incumbent parties allegedly constructed ballot access rules that disadvantaged independent candidates, the court rejected the argument that a party could use the state in order to "assure monolithic control over its own members and supporters" and denied that the "particular interests of the major parties can.


Although at the primary all candidates are members of the same party, they represent different political ideas and have different qualifications for national and party leadership . . . . In politics, one challenges establishments in primaries, not elections . . . . I f 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 the candidate of the party leadership.


In both cases, the court rejected almost out of hand any party interest in filtering out its disfavored candidates, let alone a state interest in giving the party the right to define its own membership. Applying the precedent involving general election ballot access laws, the New York courts, like those


in Lubin and Bullock, found that the laws at issue imposed severe or "undue" burdens that were not justified by the state's interest in eliminating poorly supported candidates from the Republican primary ballot.


Ideological litmus tests to filter the candidate pool raise the most difficult problems for First Amendment analysis of primary ballot access requirements however the primary election itself, not the ballot access requirement, serves as a sufficient filter of candidates out of touch with the larger party membership.


Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709,710 (1974)- Lubin Court held that the "right to vote is 'heavily burdened' if that vote may be cast only for one of two candidates in a primary election at a time when other candidates are clamoring for a place on the ballot.''


Tashjian, 479 U.S. at 211. The Republicans in Tashjian wanted to allow independents to vote in their primary, but the Democrats, who controlled the legislature, refused to pass a law allowing for an open primary. /d. at 212. The Court sided with the Republicans, holding that the law infringed on their freedom to associate and determine the identity of their standard bearer. /d. at 216-17, 225.


If party primaries were run by party officials with private funds in private places, then the party organization's argument for unconstrained power over the primary ballot would seem analogous to arguments made by leaders of other private groups who wish to control their organizations' leadership selection process.
See, e.g., Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)


(upholding right of Boy Scouts to exclude gay scoutmaster); Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (upholding right of Saint Patrick's Day parade organizers to exclude organization of gays and lesbians from marching with own banner in parade); N.Y. State Club Ass'n v. City of New York, 487 U.S. I (1988) (applying New York City Human Rights Law to private clubs); Bd. of Dir. of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537 (1987) (upholding public accommodations Jaw that prohibited gender discrimination); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (same); NAACP v. Alabama ex rei. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (upholding right of NAACP to keep membership lists private).


State action, however, permeates today's major party primaries. State laws define political parties and specify the criteria for party membership and primary election candidacy as well in Georgia demanding Candidates meet Constitutional Requirements to hold office. States also fund and run the primaries and confer a preferred status of automatic general election ballot access and ballot notation to the parties. Because of these state-conferred benefits, the role the major parties play in the larger electoral system, and the duopoly power they exercise in the political system, the Democrats and Republicans are more like public utilities than like private associations. Thus, political parties often must operate within constitutional constraints that courts do not apply to other organizations. See LEON EPSTEIN, POLITICA P R L A TIES IN THE A ERICA M M N oLD 155-199 (1986) (comparing political parties to public utilities) In the White Primary Cases, for

example, the Court held that the Democratic Party of Texas could not limit its primary electorate based on race. See Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953); Sntith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932); Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927); see also Morse v. Republican Party of Va., 517 U.S. 186 (1996).


Like general elections, party primaries exist as a major avenue for political participation. Our political system provides few opportunities for the average citizen to play a role in the workings of the democracy. Voting, both in the primary and in the general election, represents the principal opportunity for political participation fo r most Americans. Primaries have become an "integral part of the state¶s electoral machiner y, ballot access laws hinder this form of political participation b y restricting t he voters' opportunity t o cast a ballot for petitioner Cody Robert Judy.



what distinguishes democratic participation from reminiscent of elections conducted in




systems is the existence of some meaningful range of choices on the ballot for which a voter can express a preference. For this reason, what Petitioners call "participation" is what the courts consider voter "expression" or voter-candidate "association" in order to cram such voting rights into the First Amendment. The value of this expression, at least to the voters, depends on their ability to express

themselves for a candidate of their choice, not the choice of those who regulate the ballot. kIn addition to implicating values of participation and representation, a primary election regime also affects the competitiveness of an electoral system. By affecting competition, what is meant is that the regulation of the primary can determine the probability for a turnover in government,


the number of candidates actively pursuing voter support, and the chances that challenges to incumbents will arise at some point in the electoral process. In jurisdictions where gerrymanders or one-party rule (as in the South for much of its history) convert the primary into the dispositive election, primary ballot access rules can act alone to determine whether voters will ever have a chance to choose among candidates wishing to run for office or whether those constructing the ballot access rules will make their choice for them. Such worst-case scenarios reveal the obvious potential for restrictive ballot access rules to undermine the competitive character of an electoral system. From such cases and the more general proposition that a greater number of candidates vying for office suggests greater competition, the casual observer may easily conclude that the more restrictive the primary ballot rules, the less competition in the

electoral system. This more familiar, but inapplicable, model of economic competitiveness (in which consumers are almost always better served by the addition of another firm seeking to satisfy their demand)

misunderstands the dynamics of electoral competition and ignores the interaction between the primary and the general election. Regardless of how one may define electoral competitiveness, at a minimum the feature that distinguishes competitive political markets from uncompetitive ones is the ability of elections to present contests to the voters in which the winners are not predetermined.



In two high profile challenges to the rules governing the New York Republican Party's presidential primary, Steve Forbes and John

McCain successfully challenged primary ballot access laws proposed by the party organizations but codified in state law. In those cases, both of the state¶s major political parties used their legislative arms to pass into law (applicable for one election only) their preferred pr imar y ballo t access signature requirements. In both of those cases, the court found the hurdles to ballot access to constitute an undue burden on First Amendment rights of both candidates and their supporters.

ARGUMENT #2 1- That Judge Cynthia D. Wright should not have heard the case and should have referenced it directly to the GA. Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 47 governing ³Discretionary Appeals´ so as to not biased the petitioner(s) in the Appeal process to the Supreme Court by way of hearing, in a move that favored Respondent before the March 6th 2012 Primary. a. Rule 47- The Court certifying to this Court a question of law shall formulate the question and cause the question to be certified and transmitted to this Court, together with copies of such parts of the record and briefs in the case as the certifying Court deems relevant.



1- A personal grudge has biased the Petitioner(s) between the Judge and petitioners Administrative Court Counsel who was denied her Motion for pro hac vice Feb. 15th,2012, and then tried several different ways to sabotage Petitioner(s) case: a. By trying to initiate herself from Counsel in an Administrative hearing to the status of a pro se litigant/petitioner without a proper ³Motion for Joinder´. b. By submitting µMotions for letters of Rogatory´ pro se without the courts leave to appear pro se as an added Petitioner in the case after being denied pro hac vice. i. ORLY¶S BLOG PETITION FOR LETTERS ROGATORY WAS DELIVERED
Posted on | February 28, 2012 | 8 Comments


By publishing on her Blog before the case was heard that Judge Cynthia D. Wright was a Liberal Democrat and would probably deny the case and filing criminal complaint against GA. Judges while the case was pending. i. ORLY¶S BLOG FEB 17TH 2012³She is a very, very liberal Democrat. It is hard to
believe she will ever rule against Obama´

Posted on | February 27, 2012 | 8 Comments Criminal complaint filed against GA judges

d. By publishing on her Blog that she could understand why Judge Wright¶s lesbian lover shot Judge Wright she¶s so corrupt. See Exhibit I.


REQUEST Petitioners herein request a formal reconsideration of the March 2nd 2012 Order herein immediately granting one of two things based on the facts that represented by arguments 1-3 having prejudiced and biased the Petitioners in a harmful way.

1-Creating a Stay on Obama's Access to the GA. Ballot based on his Eligibility /or/

2- Creating an Order that the Secretary of State either include Cody Robert Judy¶s name on the Democratic Ballot or take Barack Obama's off, thereby protecting the GA Primary Voters confidence with at least an alternate candidate, if Obama should be forced off and found ineligible in any other Primaries Ballots later in the Primary Season or in Congressional Hearings that ultimately remove his candidacy entirely.

Submitted and Signed this 4th Day of March, 2012 /s/ Cody Robert Judy /s/ David Farrar





EXHIBIT OF EVIDENCE I. FOR RECONSIDERATION ON RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS Dear Orly, Okay Orly, thank you for the time you have put in on my behalf. I do want to explain a few things you addressed in your letter which you 'thought' was my complaining of you because I think they were a little unfair of you in light of the legal and political circumstances David and I faced in Georgia as pro se litigants up against a deadline with no help from you even after requesting it after you were denied pro hac vice status by Judge Cynthia D. Wright whom I know didn't see my Response To Motion To Dismiss because it was so different from the others and she stated in her Order "they are all the same". The formal "Motion for Joinder" in Barnett v. Obama which you are calling a "letter was an attempt to elevate your case from the position that the media was hammering you on. What was that? It was the label of being called a "Racist"., because you have chosen to pick on Obama in your eligibility case clear back since 2008. Of course you know I sued McCain first for not being born in the Country, and my joinder was an extended hand to you in Barnett v. Obama. You had the chance to pick it up and include as it was relevant to the case. You don't seem to understand Orly that as long as the "racist" tag is pinned on you and your clients you chances of winning dramatically are curtailed. I represented "equality" under the Law for the Constitution because I sued both McCain and Obama. That includes Democrats and Republicans. You "USE" Sen. Res. 511 pertaining to "two citizen parents" when its convenient against Obama, but when it comes to "soil" you forget and excuse McCain who was naturalized 11 months after his birth by Congress but your trying to hammer Obama for not being born in the U.S. as well as not having two parents. Do you understand the 'racist' claim against you when you do that? It has a flavor of truth to it and that hurts the cause of our Constitution. How would that information be beneficial to David Farrar, your client now, as well as myself as Petitioner(s) pro se? Well, we have a Democrat Judge in Cynthia D. Wright who you trashed as a liberal Democrat even before we went up in front of her on your blog. Do you think that was acting in the best interest of your clients, and more importantly the Georgia Citizenry with Obama on the GA. Ballot? I didn't think so. So rather than take my information in a 2008 Motion to the Judge I referenced in the 2012 GA. case as an insult, you should have taken it as "Wise" because I was gently letting the Judge and

every media outlet that read it know, the petition had the Constitution in mind, and wasn't racist, and I had legal motions in Barnett v. Obama and a law suit against McCain on record that Obama's Attorney brought up, for her best judgment to consider. Legally that addresses the "Political Doctrine Question" which is a hurdle for the Birther Movement to clear. You can't forget Orly these judges have the media and their entire careers at stake in the political arena as well. Don't you think a little bit of armor for them to rule in your favor would be beneficial? As an example, instead of coming out of a favorable ruling for us and being called a racist by the media for the rest of their life's, the Judge(s) have a neutral political defense to rationalize their opinion on? McCain is a big part of this conflict and I am the only recognized Presidential Candidate who sued him and that can give you an edge. I sent that Motion to you in Barnett v. Obama certified mail. I know you got that and it was "perfect" information to ask Judge Carter to reconsider based on NEW information, but you chose not to and you got hammered by Judge Carter based on favoring Barnett (retired military) over a Presidential Candidate who had standing. The Fed. 9th Circuit told you as much also, so it wasn't just me. That said, it very sad to me to have you only see what I extended as favor as an insult to you rather than a benefit to your clients and cause. I'm very sorry you feel that way. I respect your decision to proceed without me however, I think it¶s based on the fact that you¶re working for Obama and maintaining his 'racist' movement. Of course that's what it looks like when you make decisions like excluding me from the GA. Supreme Court case. You think I'm high maintenance, well I'm worth that and more because of what I represent and the fact that you completely abandoned David Farrar and I just as soon as you were denied Pro Hac Vice. The longest email I've sent you had to do with the rules of the GA. Supreme Court you requested from David, and he requested from me. I had to do everything. You wouldn't even respond to my inquiry's for help and you didn¶t' file a Response until you saw the one I had wrote gratuitously provided to you at 5AM. You followed my arguments to a T in your Response to Obama's Motion to Dismiss. I wonder if you would have actually sent one if I hadn't have sent you mine because you didn't know about the 9:45AM deadline? The Constitution pure and simple is my cause. When you take someone on as a "client" and represent them in a Administrative Court and a Superior Court, you are promising if you take it to the GA. Supreme Court to represent them because you took their reputation and their cause through the lower Courts. When you abandon them in the higher Courts where what they have done might make a difference it makes little legal sense.


You are correct, I can pursue it to the Supreme Court pro se. I suppose it¶s difficult when you live with a thousand 1 liners to actually get a page email that takes all of 5 minutes to read and has the most relevant information to it from an actual client. Just one other piece of advice; Don¶t label your clients Judges before you get finished with their cases, you know the Judges all over the Country in every high Court can see your blog. Stating that, "You could see why Cynthia D. Wrights lesbian lover shot her", as if to excuse that kind of behavior. It was morally irresponsible and legally unethical to the duty towards your clients who faced a deadline of March 6th, 2012, not to mention having the essence of endorsing such a cruel violent act criminally reprehensible.
Posted on | March 2, 2012 | 27 Comments

As expected a far left activist judge in Atlanta came up with a completely idiotic order and dismissed all 4 cases and we are off to a more conservative Supreme Court of GA. You can see, that her order is the same BS, as was written by Obama¶s attorney. I can tell, that she did not even take a minute to read our pleadings, she did not read one single word. Her order was ready before she even got any opposition papers by the defendants. I worked on opposition and didn¶t sleep at night, as I knew that I have to submit my opposition at night before the 9:35 deadline, even though I was in this case in a limited capacity in conjunction with my Petition for letters rogatory. This corrupt judge did not even read my petition and did not respond. Mr. Windsor warned me that she is among the most corrupt judges there, I could not imagine somebody that corrupt. Usually judges try to create an appearance of impartiality, this one doesn¶t even give a damn about an appearance. Now I know why her lesbian lover shot her after years of a relationship. The woman is just corrupt as can be.

With representation like that, the Defense has a lighter load to prove. Let me know if you change your mind, remove the defamatory language from your Blog, decide a Presidential Candidate who represents both sides of the isle in the eligibility demand of the Constitution is a client worth a little extra time, and has provided you with the research material you asked for in the GA. Supreme Court on "How", "Where", and "When".

Sincerely, Cody Robert Judy YouTube: CODE4PRES

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 01:59:21 -0800 Subject: Re: We should move forward?

From: To:; I just found this I get thousands of e-mails Cody, this is related, but since I got multiple lengthy e-mails from you, which are totally irrelevant to anything, it is hard to get to one e-mail, which is relevant. I need you to stop sending me a mountain of unrelated material. I am working pro bono and often tell individuals, whom I am helping, to look up a thing or two, to save some time, however you are really high maintaenance, as you take a lot of my time. For example, you wrote to judge Wright and complaned about me, that I did not include your letter to judge Carter in CA. You were implying, that I did something wrong. YOUR LETTER WAS NOT A PART OF THE DOCKET. You were never a part of my case, you were not a plaintiff, not a defendant, you had no connection to the case. Thousands of people wrote to judge Carter. None of those letters were ever included in the docket. I am sure all of those letters were thrown in the garbage. You are writing to the judge in GA, complaining that I did not include reference to some letter, that you wrote to a judge who was hearing a case in CA, where you were not a party and where a judge never paid any attention to your letter and probably threw your letter in the garbage. Cody, I am sorry, I am sure you are a good person, but I can't take it any more. I never promised to include you in an appeal to the Supreme court of GA and I feel that I need to proceed without you. You are welcome to file your own appeal pro se. You were pro se in the Superior court and you can proceed pro se in the Supreme court, if you wish.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:18 PM, cody judy <> wrote: Dear David, Hi, I just got this letter from Orly as I'm sure you did. Here's some help on the questions you asked for. I'm forwarding those to Orly also.

Dear litigants, corrupt judge Wright summarily dismissed all 4 case without hearing on the merits. She claims that no court has jurisdiction to hear this case. It is insane, I am preparing a brief for the Supreme Court of GA. If you do not want to be included, please, email me today. Otherwise, the case will go from all plaintiffs -Dr Orly TaitzESQ 29839 Santa Margarita pkwy, ste 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 ph 949-683-5411 fax949-766-7603 I am surprised Orly asked you this: On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Orly Taitz <> wrote:

I need to file an appeal with the supreme court of GA Please, send me info on the fee for the emergency stay and appeal. If this does not work, I will go to Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court of the US Send me the statutes for the Supreme Court: how, where, when to file I'm sure she as an attorney is a member of a few legal resource channels that the information is readily available to her on, but I will do some research as it may save some time and that might be her concern. I feel like I just barely recovered from being up all night writing that 18 page Response to Motion To Dismiss. I think Judge Cynthia Wright made a mistake in citing that "all" of the Responses were the same when ours covered with authority so much more than the others did. This rule 9 may be away we could "Stay" the GA. primary decisions or Ballots from being counted or Obama's name on the Ballot as ineligiable. Sincerely, Cody 12- Rule 9. SUPERSEDEAS. The Court may issue supersedeas or other orders whenever deemed necessary. Service of motions for supersedeas shall be made on the opposing party or attorney before filing and so certified. A copy of the order being appealed and a copy of the Notice of Appeal must be included with the motion. Here's some help: su·per·sede (s p r-s d ) tr.v. su·per·sed·ed, su·per·sed·ing, su·per·sedes 1. To take the place of; replace. 2. To cause to be set aside, especially to displace as inferior or antiquated.

1-The Clerk is responsible for overseeing the performance of statutory duties as set out by OCGA § 15-2-43, preparing the Court calendar, preparing and maintaining records of administrative orders, as well as managing the administrative functions of the Court, including supervisory authority over technology, purchasing, payroll, and court facilities. The Clerk also communicates with parties and the public. 2-Filings and communications related to cases shall be directed to the Clerk's office during normal business hours. The Clerk's office is open Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. E.S.T/E.D.T. The address is: 244 Washington Street Room 572, State Office Annex Building Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Phone: (404) 656-3470 FAX: (404) 656-2253 The Office of the Clerk is responsible for maintaining all case files and tracking the progress of

cases through the Supreme Court. If you are an attorney or party in a case pending before the Court, please contact the Clerk's Office at (404) 656-3470. The Clerk's Office does not accept email inquiries. Please note that Court staff cannot interpret the law or decisions of this Court, provide legal advice, recommend an attorney, or bring to the Justices' attention your concerns about a particular case pending before the Court.

3- Amended Supreme Court Rules for 2012 Link: 4- Rules of the Supreme Court 2012 Link : 5-Costs are $300.00 in all other civil cases. 6-Costs shall be paid at the time of filing of the case in this Court except in direct appeals, where costs accrue on docketing but shall be paid at the time of filing of the appellant's brief. 7-Rule 4. ATTORNEYS. An attorney must be in good standing and admitted in the Supreme Court in order to make an appearance. A visiting attorney from a foreign jurisdiction may participate in a particular case with permission of the Court. The visiting attorney's motion seeking such permission shall include a current certificate of good standing from the highest court of the foreign jurisdiction. 8-Rule 2. FILING BY FACSIMILE. No filing, except requests for an extension of time, oral argument, extra time, or extra pages, will be accepted by facsimile without the prior permission of the Court. When such permission is granted, a filing received by facsimile will be filed as of the date of receipt of the facsimile, but only after the original has been received by mail. An original need not be provided for the 4 requests listed above. Service upon the opposing party must be shown on the facsimile. See Rule 14. 9IV. DISCRETIONARY APPEALS Rule 33. REQUIREMENTS. Applications for discretionary appeal shall contain a jurisdictional statement and have attached a stamped copy of the trial court's order to be appealed, showing the date of filing. A transcript is not necessary, but affidavits, exhibits and relevant portions of the transcript should be attached to the application to demonstrate to the Court what the record will show if the application is granted. See Rule 17. 10-Rule 20. BRIEFS: PAGE LIMITATION. Briefs, petitions for certiorari, applications for appeal, motions, and responses shall be limited to 30 pages in civil cases, except upon written request directed by letter to the Clerk and authorized by the Court prior to the due date of the filing.

11- (1) The Court prescribes no particular arrangement for briefs, motions, applications for appeal, petitions for certiorari, or other papers. However, Rules specifying certain paper, size, and spacing must be complied with and page references to the record (R-) and transcript (T-) are essential. The volume of cases necessarily requires that all matters be presented succinctly. Inclusion of extraneous facts and frivolous issues tends to obscure critical issues. Generally, a presentation by the moving party in the following order, where applicable, is the most efficient: Type of case showing Supreme Court jurisdiction, the judgment appealed, and date of entry; a brief statement of the facts showing the general nature of the case; the enumeration of errors; the argument in sequence with the enumeration of errors, including additional facts where essential, and citation of authorities; and the certification of service. Replies in the same order as presented by appellant are desirable. 12- Rule 9. SUPERSEDEAS. The Court may issue supersedeas or other orders whenever deemed necessary. Service of motions for supersedeas shall be made on the opposing party or attorney before filing and so certified. A copy of the order being appealed and a copy of the Notice of Appeal must be included with the motion. 13-Rule 6. FRIVOLOUS APPEAL. The Court may, with or without a motion, impose a penalty not to exceed $2,500 against any party and/or party's counsel in any civil case in which there is a direct appeal, application for discretionary appeal, application for interlocutory appeal, petition for certiorari, or motion which the Court determines to be frivolous. 14-Rule 47. QUESTION PRESENTED. The Court certifying to this Court a question of law shall formulate the question and cause the question to be certified and transmitted to this Court, together with copies of such parts of the record and briefs in the case as the certifying Court deems relevant. 15-Rule 15. NUMBER OF COPIES. An original and seven copies shall be filed of briefs, petitions for certiorari, applications for appeal, motions, and responses.

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 14:08:44 -0500 Subject: Re: We should move forward? From: To: Hi Cody, Can you address these issues: Georgia statutes for the Supreme Court: how, where, when to file -how to file, et cetra david On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Orly Taitz <> wrote: I need to file an appeal with the supreme court of GA

Please, send me info on the fee for the emergency stay and appeal. If this does not work, I will go to Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court of the US Send me the statutes for the Supreme Court: how, where, when to file Don't waste your time writing to Kemp. Wright confirmed his opinion, he is happy. We need a group of tea party patriots going to Sam Olune, AG of GA and demanding criminal charges. If you can put together a large Tea party group and set the time, i will go with you to OPlens, For now, we need to concentrate on emergency appeal to the Supreme court of GA On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 7:46 AM, David Farrar <> wrote:

I will be hitting Sec. Kemp very hard over the next couple of weeks, mainly through local Tea Party organizations, when he fails to appeal Judge Wright's decision overruling Judge Malihi's ruling in our case. In any case, what do we do to move Judge Wright's decision to the state's supreme court? Please advise. david

-Dr Orly TaitzESQ 29839 Santa Margarita pkwy, ste 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 ph 949-683-5411 fax949-766-7603

-ex animo davidfarrar

-Dr Orly TaitzESQ 29839 Santa Margarita pkwy, ste 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 ph 949-683-5411 fax949-766-7603

CERTIFICATION OF MAILING Fulton County Superior Court 136 Pryor St SW # C640 Atlanta, GA 30303-3429 I do hereby certify that I mailed, via U.S. Mail, a true and correct copy of the forgoing 1- RECONSIDERATION TO RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS W/EXHIBIT I.

Postage pre-paid, to the RESPONDENT, by and through his Counsel at: Attorney for RESPONDENT: Esquire Mr. Michael Jablonski for Barack Obama and Vincent Russo counsel for secretary of State Brian Kemp on this 5TH day of March, 2012. And addressed interested parties: Michael Jablonski 260 Brighton Road NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309-1523 Secretary of State Brian Kemp Georgia Secretary of State¶s Office ±Executive Office 214 State Capital Atlanta Georgia 30334 cc: Michael Jablonski, counsel for Barack Obama at, Vincent Russo, counsel for secretary of State Brian Kemp at Cody Judy- 3031 Ogden Avenue, Suite #2, Ogden, UT. 84403 On this the 5TH Day of March, 2012. Signature of Mailer __/s/__Cody Robert Judy___ Signiture of Mailer : _______________________ Fulton County Superior Court Clerk's Office att: Civil Division Att: Civil Division 136 Pryor Street SW Atlanta GA. 30303


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful