CODY ROBERT JUDY Pro Se 3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite 2 Ogden, UT. 84403 (801)497-6655

Email: codyjudy@hotmail.com Web Site: www.codyjudy.us ___________________________________________________________________ FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF GEORGIA __________________________________________________________

DAVID FARRAR, CODY ROBERT JUDY,

EMERGENCY EXPARTE SUA SPONTE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ON APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION & EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY

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 SUA SPONTE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ON APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION & EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY´, with the following Facts, Argument, Summary Conclusion and Request for the Courts consideration.

FACTS 1- The action coming before the Court now was proceeded by the Thursday, January 26, 2012
hearing known as OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- : 1215136-60-Malihi.

2- The decision of that hearing was made by Judge Malihi on Feb 3rd,2012 and the

subsequent recommendation to Secretary State Brian Kemp who abiding upheld on Feb 7th,2012 stating:
"After careful consideration of Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi's initial decision and all record evidence based on the criteria set forth in this process, I find that the Respondent, President Barack Obama, meets the State of Georgia's eligibility requirements. President Barack Obama's name shall remain on the Democratic Party's 2012 Presidential Preference Primary ballot."

3- Service of APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION & EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY to Barack Obama was completed to Counsel Mr. Mike Jablonsky Esq. on 2012-02-20 at 0958. 4- Service of APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION & EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY to Secretary of State Brian Kemp Office of the Atty. General was completed on 2012-02-21 at 1015. 5- The Petitioner, Cody Robert Judy¶s Motion and Memorandum to proceed Pro Se was received by the Court and verified by Elizabeth Baum Staff Attorney to the Honorable Cynthia D. Wright on 2012-02-23.

6- Pursuant O.C.G.A.§ 21-2-193, ³List of names of candidates to appear on ballot; publication of list. On a date set by the Secretary of State, but not later than 60 days preceding the date on which a presidential preference primary is to be held, the state

executive committee of each party which is to conduct a presidential preference primary shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of the names of the candidates of such party to appear on the presidential preference primary ballot. Such lists shall be published on the website of the Secretary of State during the fourth week immediately preceding the date on which the presidential preference primary is to be held.

ARGUMENT 1- The urgency of this EMERGENCY EXPARTE SUA SPONTE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ON APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION & EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY, is posed upon the pending March 6th,2012 Primary Ballot for the Democratic Party upon which only one name has been submitted to Secretary Brian Kemp for the consideration of estimated millions of the Georgia citizen voter of the Democratic Party. 2- Petitioner Cody Robert Judy, a Democratic Party Presidential contender, has been denied from the Ballot by three men¶s decisions in the shadow of millions of Georgia Voters without the benefit of due process or the upheld Constitutional demand for a natural born citizen. 3- Presumably, if this Court found that Judge Malihi's decisions had violated the legal precedent of the United States Supreme Court and the United States Constitution¶s demand for a µnatural born citizen¶, in a ruling and recommendation to Sec. of State Mr. Brian Kemp, the proper course would be to remove Barack Obama aka. Barry Soetoro¶s name from the Ballot and inform the Georgia Democrat Party that the one name they had submitted was not eligible to be on the ballot and most assuredly the Democratic Party

would scramble to get other names submitted for its faithful party members to vote for, lest the whole Georgia Democratic Party be dis-enfranchised from the vote. 4- The GA. Democratic Party Chair doesn¶t even have an alternate or second person listed on the Ballot if any of the remaining States decide in a more timely fashion given their belated primaries that Barack Obama is not eligible to be on their ballot. Now the only political play left in such a circumstance to a major American political party as the Democratic Party is, in the 9th most populated state in the Union, to decide a nominee from the National Convention of the Democratic Party. 5- The major injustice of this is that millions of Democratic Party members in the State of Georgia are now completely cast out and disenfranchised from the primary election process, which after the primary has now been delegated to a roughly the 124 Georgia Delegates. Those delegates now have no confidence to report in a qualified candidate, or call to represent anyone they were chosen for. The conclusion ominously given is that Judge Malihi's pure grade of petroleum in an µadministrative court¶ burns up the ability of the Judicial Branch to save millions of Georgia citizen¶s right to vote for a qualified candidate if this Court doesn¶t take immediate and emergency action to stay the decision. 6- Right now the Judicial Branch in the checks and balances held in the power of this Court alone for the free elections of the entire state of Georgia still has an opportunity to save otherwise millions of dis-enfranchised votes by simply affirming from the decision that Barack Obama did not produce any document that validates his eligibility at the hearing he chose to boycott and enforcing the fact that no one is above the law. The case of Haynes v Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA 2000) establishes that a candidate seeking to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove their eligibility. This

holding relied upon O'Brien v Gross OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-0829726-60-MALIHI, at 12 (2008) "The burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office."id. 7- Potential Candidate Obama/Soetoro was served a complaint and a subpoena and tried to get out of it both with a Motion to Dismiss and then a Motion to Quash the Subpoena. Both were denied in a charade of justice serving everyone and no one being above the law. Then Obama¶s counsel wrote a letter on the eve of the hearing begging Secretary State Brian Kemp to pull the case out from under the Judge because it¶s an executive court not a µJudicial Court and GA. S.O.S. Kemp wrote back stating if Obama boycotted the hearing he did so at his own peril. 8- Obama and his Counsel boycotted the hearing refusing to address the identity trailing facts of Obama¶s/Soetoro¶s Indonesian Citizenship in grade school, his registration as Barry Soetoro expert witnesses through testimony and a number of affidavits that excruciatingly placed reasonable doubt upon respondent Barack Obama¶s claim to be eligible by the demands of our United States Constitution for the office of President by virtue of not having dual citizenship records under a verity of differing names. 9- These were not simply names variation changes of the American nature such as Mitt Romney really being Willard Mitt Romney both understood to be tied to a real American natural born citizen. These are names of completely different nationalities as Indonesia is to America, and thus foreign allegiances are established to the individual Obama/Soetoro as real identifying power established for the basis of multiple Governments respect for law in prima facie evidence that ± unless rebutted ± would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. Unlike most Petitioners, we do not have the burden of prove placed upon us, for that dutifully rest in this case, as it should, with the Respondent

Obama who refused to produce anything. In the absence of evidence portrayed by the candidate he should not be rewarded with his request to be placed upon Georgia¶s ballot. 10- As a consideration to the Court to minimize the burden of calling someone in the White House ineligible, because that sounds really bad, and certainly represents a break down in responsibility to the voters by their Congressional Representatives, elected and appointed Judges, the petitioners did in fact offer prima facie evidence that supported further Barack Obama not only not being a ³Natural Born Citizen´ but not even being a ³Citizen´ who has a standard social security number that can pass E-Verify. If fault can be found with Petitioners it is that we made it too clear if that could be considered a fault as if we did have the burden of proof. Again as was offered, this was for the consideration of the Court¶s burden of staying the recommendation of Respondent Obama from the Georgia Ballot more so than proving a crime as an Attorney General is elected to do. 11- As a consideration to the Court to minimize the burden of calling someone in the White House the person who generated the long form fabrication presented to the public as Obama¶s long form birth certificate, we provided experts in the fields of computer document imaging systems, scanners imaging systems ,and typesetting, who came willingly without being paid and with no particular political motivation or favor to be awarded to them, except the simply interest of protecting the integrity of the American Republic for which we stand as Americans. 12- As a consideration to the Court to minimize the burden of calling someone in charge of America¶s Armed forces and Nuclear Codes a National Security Threat, we simply provided prima facie evidence in affidavits that Obama, who had reportedly graduated from Harvard Law School as the President of the Harvard Law Review was no longer

admitted to even practice law in the State of Ill., presumably because he lied about not going under any other names or aliases; aka Barry Soetoro a citizen of Indonesia. The presumption that if lying about your identity matters to the Illinois State Bar Association, it should also matter to the eligibility ballot commissions and Administrative Courts and certainly should concern the citizenry of the United States as per the demands of a ³natural born citizen´ for the office of the President of our United States. 13- O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5:(e) An aggrieved party may obtain a review of any final judgment of the superior court by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as provided by law, however millions of Georgia Citizens can¶t wait for more proof from Petitioners as a consideration for the Court¶s burden, while not an ounce of proof from the Respondent is fore with demanded according to law, and the Georgia Primary goes on with an ineligible candidate as the only candidate for the Democratic Party allowed on the Ballot. This would constitute as commonly as it can be uttered highway robbery: Meaning the fastest way to get away with the gravest and most despicable heist ever imagined in America. 14- Statutory construction of the United States Constitution is prohibited and considered a heist. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, theµfirst step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.¶ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512(2008). µWhere the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.¶ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other µnatural and reasonable construction¶ of the statutory language, this Court is µnot authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or

change its meaning.µ Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).´ 15- As such consideration is given to Article II, Sect. I, Clause 5 Petitioners points out that in perhaps abit of a word paradox in opposition to Minor v Happersett 88 U.S. 163(1875) decision, ³The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort
must be had elsewhere to ascertain that´, we don¶t need to guess the ³who´, but we do see

who is not considered a µnatural born citizen¶ expressly from Art. II Sect. I, Clause 5 itself in simple construction, the Constitution provides for us that ³Citizens´ are not ³Natural Born Citizens´ as reasonable deduction leads: for why would ³Citizens of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution´, be a class needing to be exempted from the µnatural born citizen¶ demand for President? It¶s not a clever construction to ascertain that ³Citizens´ before the Constitution was adopted were given an exemption and ³Citizens´ after the Constitution was adopted were not given this exemption. 16- We have indeed within the Constitution the word ³Citizens´ being recognized within the Constitution as not being µNatural Born Citizens¶ in harmony with the word ³Citizens´ as is noted in U.S.C. Amendment XIV¶s wording of ³Citizens´ of the United States and of the State wherein they reside referring to those born or naturalized. This would necessarily include those foreigners coming over and legally becoming citizens, as well as the Communist heads of State coming over just in time to have an anchor baby and taking them back to their country only to emerge as a contender for president with the µnatural born citizen¶ demand met.

17- The only construction in Minor v. Happersett that is necessary to concur with the information found in the Constitution itself to distinguish ³natural born citizen´ from µcitizen¶ is indeed the mention of ³parents´ who were citizens: ³it was never doubted that all
children born in a country of parents who were its ´citizensµ became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.´ This

particularly shows that ³natural born citizens´ are also ³Citizens´ , but that ³Citizens´ are not necessarily afforded to be ³natural born citizens´ as denoted by the two prong test of birth within the United States of America to Citizen Parents, also in harmony of Minor v. Happersett clause regarding the class of citizens that indeed was problematic noting there were doubts indeed. 18- This necessarily provided the two generation gap between a foreign head-of-state of, say as example, Communist China from coming over in the assimilated construction of Judge Malihi advice and recommendation, dropping or birthing a child down in the United States, taking their son back to China for a few years then propping him up financially as a natural born citizen with every right and dollar to be the President of the United States. This effectively makes the Revolution and Independence and Sovereignty of The United States of America a farce and every drop of blood spilt for the cause of this Nations freedom and liberty a lie. 19- For the Courts own consideration, attached to the January 25, 2012 letter from Respondent Obama¶s Counsel to GA. Secretary of State Brian Kemp is the long form fabrication released to the trust of the press by Respondent that included the foreign citizenship of the twenty-five (25) year old father of the Barack Obama aka Barry

Soetoro at the time of his birth thereby negating the ³natural born citizen´ demand needed to qualify for President as demanded by The United States Constitution. 20- In 1961 Kenya had not been founded so it¶s rather surprising that Kenya East Africa is noted as the residence of Obama Sr. earlier than the 1963 Independence of the State known as British East Africa as well as the race of ³Negro´ not being used in the date and time for ³African´ however these anomalies pale in the light of the experts dissecting this fabrication to be a document of bits and parts assembled from the rights of those that it was stolen from as well those who it was fed to like slop in the expectations that we would gobble it all up and forget after three years the meaning of Natural Born Citizen as if it could be altered by a bully rather than forged by our Sovereignty and Independent history.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION
1- Mr. Obama has not been relieved of the demand of being a Natural Born Citizen as constructed by the United States Constitution in Article II, Sect. I, Clause 5 and U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Minor v. Happersett. Nor has Mr. Obama been relieved of O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 the

constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought and this Court has jurisdiction of the matter pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(e).
2- The Petitioners have shown prima facie evidence and sworn affidavits that was literally

uncontested which more than reliefs this Court the burden of any injustice by granting a stay of Obama¶s name on the Ballot, in light of Respondent Obama¶s boycott, and the consideration of the Democratic Party in Georgia. The potential dis-enfranchisement of millions of votes cast in the Democratic Primary on an ineligible candidate with no other candidate on the ballot simply because the matter took too long to adjudicate is not an
10

excuse in this case. The eventuality that justice will come out wither Georgia chooses to sweep it under the carpet or courageously faces it in the defense of the very clearly defined citizens right to vote is a clear message indeed for the record books of Georgia Citizens to consider in the future elections of State Authority.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 1Petitioner(s) herein request the relief, Cody Robert Judy as a candidate for President in the Democratic Party and citizen voter, David Farrar a concerned Citizen with a vote in the Georgia Primary and General elections of 2012, for a Summary Judgment to be made immediately on the merits that the Respondent has completely failed both the natural born citizen demand held in the vaults of the United States Constitution as well as the extended hand of justice with his boycott of the Court, and thus a Stay Order be constructed by the Court, and issued that prohibits placing Respondent Barack Obama¶s on the Ballot to the Secretary of State of Georgia, so that the Democratic Party can adjust its Ballot name recommendations to Secretary of State Kemp including Cody Robert Judy to the Primary Voters as a choice in the State of Georgia. 2All other relief that the Court might construe necessary, fair, and just to the rights and deprivations of the petitioners caused by the gross indulgences of corruption such as expenses that have compiled upon the petitioners in bringing this action to the Court(s) in the consideration of justice. Signed and submitted this 27th day of February, 2012. Petitioner signature : /s/ Cody Robert Judy Petitioner Signiture: /s/ David Farrar

11

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- EMERGENCY EXPARTE SUA SPONTE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ON
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION & EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY

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 27TH day of February, 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 MJablonski@comcast.net , Vincent Russo, counsel for secretary of State Brian Kemp at VRrusso@sos.ga.gov Cody Judy- 3031 Ogden Avenue, Suite #2, Ogden, UT. 84403 On this the 18th Day of February, 2012. Signature of Mailer __/s/__Cody Robert Judy___ Signiture of Mailer : _______________________ Fulton Courty Superior Court Clerk's Office att: Civil Division Att: Civil Division 136 Pryor Street SW Atlantia Ga 30303

12

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful