You are on page 1of 18

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, RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS 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, RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS. Petitioner(s) do so pursuant to the Courts consideration, announcement, and directive sent by email March 1st,2012 that a response was due March 2nd 2012 by 9:45AM, in light of the circumstances of the Appeal requiring a decision prior to the March 6th, 2012 Democratic Party primary. Whereupon the Democratic Party and all eligible voters would not be biased from a reversal, of the Administrative Courts recommendation and thereupon Secretary of State Brian Kemps decision: sustaining in the Appeal that Barack Obama was not eligible to be placed upon the Georgia Ballot for the office of President of the United
1

States of America in the coming Nov. 2012 election allowing time for said Democratic Party to submit a name(s), established by the Petitioner(s) herein as Cody Robert Judy, who is a registered Federal Election Commission candidate for President of the United States in the Democratic Party, eligible under the Constitution as a natural born citizen, being born in Idaho Falls, Idaho in 1965 to parents who were Citizens after the adoption of the Constitution and meeting all the requirements of eligibility, providing competitive standing in the presidential race, to Secretary of State Kemp in order to be placed upon the Ballot established for Primary Voters in Georgia attending the March 6th 2012 Super Tuesday Primary. ARGUMENT FIRST DEFENSE FAILS 1- Respondent list nearly two (2) pages of court cases in foot note one (1) with the summation and presumption that application of those cases be asserted in this particular case stating boldly, not a single case has ever been upheld. Petitioner(s) will elaborate on the application of a few of those cases as it applies in these instances since Respondent has brought them up, introduced them, and expects the Court to Dismiss this case because of them, in affect absorbing them on account of standing and as a provocative insult in harassing the Respondent. 2- Petitioner(s) asserts that Ballot Challenges have been upheld in many instances, however in Mr. Barack Obamas relative challenges most cases have been dismissed for lack of standing or in other words as the District Courts related no one had standing, however the 9th Circuit Court appellate judges said: a. The individuals who were politically connected to the race should hold an interest in a fair outcome including whether there was an ineligible candidate aboard the ticket. 1
2

b. The opinion from judges Harry Pregerson, Ray Fisher and Marsha Berzon explained the concept is called "competitive standing," and they affirmed it as legitimate grounds for concern. 1 c. "This notion of 'competitive standing' has been recognized by several circuits," the opinion said. "We, too, have upheld the notion of 'competitive standing.' In Owen v. Mulligan, we held that the 'potential loss of an election' was an injury-infact sufficient to give a local candidate and Republican Party officials standing. In that case, the candidate for local office sued the Postal Service for giving his rival a preferential mailing rate, in violation of its own regulations." 1 The opinion said the case had the candidate and party officials seeking "to prevent their opponent from gaining an unfair advantage." However, in Obama's case, the court panel simply said once the inauguration was held, the claims evaporated and the judges wrote, "Once the 2008 election was over and the president sworn in, Keyes, Drake and Lightfoot were no longer 'candidates' for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not alleged any interest in running against President Obama in the future.(i) "Therefore, none of the plaintiffs could claim that they would be injured by the 'potential loss of an election,'" the court said. 1 i. This is an interesting note further demonstrating the legitimacy of the Petitioner(s) cause as Mr. Cody Robert Judy did run in 2008 and is also running in 2012 and sued both Sen. John McCain and Barack Obama for not being eligible as is discussed further on page 5 of this complaint.

d. It is also important to note the Appeals decision never went so far as stating that Barack Obama was eligible to be President by the demands of qualification for said office in the United States Constitution or Supreme Law of the Land.

(1)Keyes v. Obama,8:09-cv-00082, 2009 WL 3861788, (U.S.D.C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009),appeal pending, No. 10-55084 (9th Cir., 2011).

3- Petitioner(s) assert that in Georgia in 2008 there were at least 7 candidates on the Democratic Party Primary Ballot receiving a total of approximately 1,060,851 votes cast and not one of the competing candidates against Barack Obama challenged his eligibility to be on the Ballot. As a result the 704,247 Democratic Party votes cast for Barack Obama were all cast under the impression he was an eligible candidate qualified under U.S.C. Art. II, Sect. 1, clause 5., and Petitioner(s) contend were dis-enfranchised of U.S.C. Amendment XV, because under the impression of voting for an eligible candidate they were essentially defrauded. This represented 66.39% and 60 of the 87 delegates awarded to him at the National Convention. 51% casting a vote in the Primary of Georgia were black and 88% voted for Obama which was like disenfranching a whole race. 4- Petitioner(s) assert at the time of the Georgia Primary no one had any idea that Barack Obama would go on to win the National Democratic Party nomination, and it wasnt until late in the 2008 campaign summer he emerged the National Party Nominee. This fact relates to the importance of this early challenge in 2012 that never took place in 2008. 5- Petitioner(s) assert that Candidate Cody Robert Judys challenge to Candidate Barack Obama is unlike any other 2008 challenge, because it is about an unfair participation in a race Barack Obama is not qualified to run. Every campaign dollar Obama collects is unfair to fund-raising efforts Mr. Judy makes; every campaign dollar contributed to Mr. Judys campaign is placed against an unfair competition by an ineligible candidate; every favor of the Democratic Party Chair to Mr. Obama by not recommending Cody Robert

Judy on the Primary Ballot to SOS Brian Kemp is an unfair competition edge and represents a meanness or hurt to the United States Constitution, Mr. Judy, and the voters of Georgia. Because the Democratic Party Chairmen has not recommended Mr. Judy to Mr. Kemp the only choice Mr. Judy has had is to remove Mr. Obama from the Ballot which than places the Democratic Party Chairmen in a position to either castigate his own party from the entire voting primary or make another recommendation which would be inclusive of Mr. Judy, as has been a big part of the Democratic Partys theme in the past. 6- Found on the second page of Respondents list of Court Cases the Court can see Mr. Cody Robert Judy, as a write-in Presidential Candidate in 2008, has a record of challenging not only Candidate Barack Obama in 2008 but also challenged Sen. John McCain on the eligibility issue in a law suit filed two (2) days prior to Sen. McCain being made the GOP National Nominee on Sep 3rd 2008. Judy v. McCain, 2:08cv01162 U.S.D.C Nev.,2008 The law suit included serving Sen. McCain and also the National Committee. In that law suit on Nov. 3, 2008 an Emergency Exhibit of Evidence was filed that allowed the District Court Judge to see the argument against Barack Obama then being presented at that time in the U.S. Supreme Court by Phil Berg. In Judy v. McCain the ruling stated after the election, the case was moot because Barack Obama had won even though nearly 48% of the vote had been dis-enfranchised on an ineligible candidate in Sen. McCain who was not born in the United States or U.S. foreign controlled territory and was first naturalized 11 months after his birth as a Citizen, and further received his Natural Born Citizen award by 511 a non-binding U.S. Senate Resolution, both acts requiring Congress rather than nature or natures natural laws.

a.

But those circumstances and late campaign nominating circumstances are not found anywhere in February and March of 2012, and so do not overshadow this challenge nor the entirely different political climate for the 2012 Race that brings Candidate Obama back to Georgia as no more and no less a Candidate wanting Georgias votes.

b. The importance Mr. Judys actions in 2008 cannot be under stated as without it the recipe for the charges of racism exists. Haphazardly planted in the American Peoples mind is Donald Trumps flirt as a candidate for 2012 in the GOP Race, and more widely remembered was the racist charge that was thrown and endorsed by all four of the major news media against him for insisting Barack Obama release a long form birth certificate which was forged upon the American intelligence. The contention being that if Sen. John McCain was given a pass in U.S. Senate Resolution 511 albeit non-binding and co-sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, anyone demanding then Mr. Barack Obama be a qualified candidate by the demands of the Constitution was a racist. Mr. Judy flatly endorses with his legal actions and his words that this is not about race but is about the demands of our Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. In fact Mr. Judy with his actions has defended the many minorities who voted in the majority and had their voice dis-enfranchised on ineligible candidates in 2008 and three (3) years is often considered a short time for cases reaching the Supreme Court and thus does not represent any title to construct the plain language in the Constitution or altar the Amending process as alluded to in Mr. Judys MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO PROCEED PRO SE (pg.7), and also the

EMERGENCY EXPARTE SUA SPONTE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ON APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION & EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY(pg. 7 ), referring to Congresss actions in 2000 not to allow foreign born citizens to be eligible for President and judicial construction of the Constitution. Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, thefirst step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language. Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512(2008). Where 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). 7- The argument that not a single challenge has ever been upheld is a pre-mature conclusion by the Respondents Counsel as Mr. Judy hasnt stopped his challenge of Barack Obama not being eligible to the demands of the Constitution since 2008 and this matter is a testament of that. Thus, the defense of this claim has no conclusive merit for holding the Courts action to Dismiss as an ongoing and legitimate contention by a Presidential candidate in the Democratic Party adhering to every construct that the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held were indeed criteria for competitive standing and has in fact used the proper procedural process and evidentiary requirements to indeed legally pursue the political agenda of preserving, protecting and defending the United States Constitution. Petitioner(s) categorically deny being lawyers as asserted by the Respondents claim in Rhodes v. MacDonald.

a. For the complete record and for unknown reasons, Mrs. Orly Taitz refused or decided not to propagate Mr. Judys Motion for Joinder in Keyes v. Obama which was later renamed Barnett v. Obama considered by the 9th Circuit and is found on the internet here under Judy v. Obama: http://www.scribd.com/doc/22288917/Judy-v-Obama b. Mrs. Orly Taitz, who had represented petitioner(s) in Administrative Court proceedings was denied pro hac vice status in this action, however Petition(s) notice in Weldon v. Obama petitioners Motion to admit Counsel Attorney Van R. Irion to proceed pro hac vice was granted.

ARGUMENT SECOND DEFENSE FAILS 1- Respondents Motion To Dismiss states a claim of admission on page 4 Obama was a United States Citizen from the time he was born in Hawaii. Since he held citizenship from birth, all Constitutional qualifications have been met Citing: Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana. a. Petitioner(s) take this statement as a tactical admission that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. At issue is not wither Barack Obama was a Citizen of the United States after the adoption of the Constitution as it is clearly understood from Respondents statement and is stated in U.S.C. Art. II, Sect. 1, clause 5 where two classes of citizenship are considered. i. Citizens of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitutionshall be eligible for the Office of President; who are thusly
8

exempted from being Natural Born Citizens for which we can find Citizens of the United States after the adoption of this Constitution are not given an exemption. ii. And, No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President; b. As admitted Obama is stated by his professional Counsel who knows him and represents him with full faith and confidence that he is only a United States Citizen and therefore is not a Natural Born Citizen, and incorrectly asserts that being a United States Citizen is enough to meet the qualification demands for the Office of President. i. U.S.C. Article I Sect. 2 clause 3 declares, No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States.. (boldness used to accentuate the language of Respondents admission) ii. U.S.C. Article I Sect. 3 clause 3 declares, No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States.. (boldness used to accentuate Respondents admission) c. Motion to dismiss makes a claim that is unsubstantiated by any real facts in stating Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. The burden of proof is laid upon Respondent 2 to show any documents that state he was indeed born in Hawaii making him a Citizen of the United States. The Administrative hearing was indeed held for the benefit of showing Petitioners that reliable evidence existed

that the claim of birth in Hawaii can be substantiated with. Mr. Obama and his Counsel, but they refused and boycotted the hearing. i.
2

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. d. Additionally, March 1st, 2012 the Sheriff Law enforcement agency of Maricopa County Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a press conference revealing a six month investigation had by his cold case posse and it concluded there is probable cause that the document released by the White House last year as Barack Obamas birth certificate is a computer generated forgery. The link available to the public includes 5 short videos less than 5 minutes each that relate the probable cause. i. http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes-posse-probable-cause-obamacertificate-a-fraud/ ii. From ABC News YouTube Station: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDMk35bw-HE&feature=youtu.be iii. From CBS News http://nation.foxnews.com/sheriff-joe-arpaio/2012/03/01/sheriff-joearpaio-obama-birth-certificate-forgery

10

ARGUMENT THIRD DEFENSE FAILS__ LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION THE STATE OF GEORGIA MAY NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER A POLITICAL PARTY'S CHOICE OF NAMES TO INCLUDE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY. 1- The State of Georgia does not owe the Democratic Party allegiance, however the State Democratic Party does operate within the laws of Georgia. The political parties right to decide who can be members does not extend to forcing the State to place on the ballot someone who is not constitutionally qualified for that office. Nothing in the Constitution or precedent forces the State to place on the Ballot unqualified persons.

2- In fact, this action does not necessitate the Court to declare Cody Robert Judy should be placed on the Ballot. Rather this action is to determine if Barack Obama should be placed on the Ballot in enough time that should this Court find reversing the Administrative Courts recommendation and thus sending a Stay to the Secretary of State that Mr. Obamas name not be placed on the Ballot, based upon his utter refusal to cooperate with the Administrative Hearing in showing any proof he is eligible by the demands of the Constitution for the office of President which was his burden, that the Democratic Party would have time to submit another name(s)as is their responsibility to the State. The decision is clearly a consideration for the States Democratic Party members who number over a million to find an eligible representative for their voting rights not to be wasted by the decision of a couple of men, but is decided by adhering to the Constitutions demand for qualification.

11

3- Several right-to-associate cases did involve candidates exclusion from ballots. See Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981); Duke v. Cleland, 954 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1992); Belluso v. Poythress, 485 F.Supp. 904 (N.D.Ga. 1980). However, all of these cases are exactly opposite to the present situation. All involved political parties excluding a candidate because the party didnt want to be associated with the candidate. In every case cited the candidate sued the party and/or state for inclusion on the ballot after being excluded. There are no cases where a political partys decision to support a candidate created a Constitutional right to force a State to accept that decision. Such precedent would place the political partys authority above that of the state. This is why no such precedent exists. Georgia has determined that it is in the best interest of its citizens to screen candidates prior to placement on the ballot. See 21-2-5. Right-toassociate precedent does not prevent Georgia from protecting its citizens in this manner. ARGUMENT FOURTH DEFENSE FAILS__ THE QUALIFICATIONS CHALLENGE STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY. 1- The Respondent also argues that the certification mentioned in 21-2-5(a) refers to O.C.G.A. 21-2-154(a), and therefore the applicability of 21-2-5(a) has not triggered prior to the Presidential primary. See Def.s Mtn. at 3. However, 21-2-5(b) clearly negates this argument. It states in relevant part, The Secretary of Statemay challenge the qualification of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. 21-2-5(b)(emphasis added). At this time, no one has been elected to the office of President of the United States for the term of office beginning in January 2013, today is still any time prior to the election of such candidate. 21-2-5(b) clearly authorizes the Secretary of State to challenge the qualification of any candidate for the 2013
12

Presidential term at any time before the November 2012 general election, regardless of whether any certification has occurred, and regardless of what certification is being referred to in subsection (a). 2- The Respondents certification argument also runs against the plain meaning of 21-215s all-encompassing language. Again, the Petitioners plain-language interpretation leaves Georgia Election code in harmony while the Respondents argument requires internal conflict within the same Title of Georgia code. 3- Finally, the Respondents interpretation of Georgia code runs against common sense. It cannot be logically argued that the Georgia legislature passed a statute requiring Every candidate for federal and state office to meet the constitutional qualifications for office, yet it intended the State to ignore the clear disqualification of a candidate for the highest constitutional office in our country. ARGUMENT FIFTH DEFENSE FAILS SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND PETITION FOR REVIEW UPON AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A PARTY IS INSUFFICIENT 1- In 2003 the Georgia Court of Appeals established that when petitioning a Superior Court for review of a Georgia state administrative decision, service by mail of the petition, without a case number or summons, upon the parties below and the administrative agency is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Douglas Asphalt Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission, 263 Ga.App. 711 (2003). In Douglas the petition for review, alone, was served upon the parties and agency contemporaneously with the filing of said petition. Id. at 711-12. Therefore, the petition did not yet have a case number assigned by the clerk nor a summons issued. Yet the Appellate Court established that jurisdiction was established and service was proper. Id. Additionally, Respondents argument that the
13

summons is deficient because the summons served was not signed by this Courts Clerk is, at best, premature. No deadline to serve the Respondent has yet expired. The Petition in the instant case was timely filed. Petitioner(s) asserts that the Respondent was properly served. However, even if Petitioner is incorrect on this point, the Petitioner can place a summons, signed by this Courts Clerk, in the mail and thereby complete service. Douglas Asphalt, 263 Ga.App. at 712. The Petitioner(s) requests that this Court deny Respondents motion to dismiss and confirm that service is complete. Alternatively, the Petitioner(s) requests that this court deny the Respondents motion to dismiss and order the Petitioner(s) to complete service of the signed summons by dropping same in the mailbox. ARGUMENT SIXTH DEFENSE FAILS THE PETITION FOR REVIEW DOES NOT STATE CIAIMS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT 1- The petitioner(s) are not stating a claim against the President of the United States but are stating a claim against candidate Mr. Barack Obama who would like to be on the Georgia Ballot and contend in the 2012 election. For the election of 2012 Barack Obama is not the President but is seeking to be the President and is subject to all Candidate rules and regulations of the State of Georgia. The claim is indeed that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen qualified for the office of President and thus is not to be placed upon the Georgia ballot in a deception to all Georgia Primary voters that he is qualified. 2- In the contention that the Secretary of State be served, Petitioner(s) have this record.
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: <Marc.Allard@alsapp1.atlantalegalservices.com>Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:31 AM Subject: Auto-Email Notification To: orly.taitz@gmail.com DAVID FARRAR vs. Your file# Our file# 94252 Office of the Atty General was completed on 2012-02-21 at 1015...

14

Manner: CORPORATE Person Served: Alicia Britt - Admin Clerk, Law Office Address Of Service:40 Capitol Sq., Rm 122 Atlanta GA 30334

3- Respondent Obamas proof of service recorded here Feb 20th,2012 upon Counsel: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Proof-of-service-prodessionalprocess-server.pdf
Mr. Obama was finally served through his attorney, see attached X InboxX Reply |Orly Taitz to Elizabeth, michael.jablon., Vincent, David, cody, marc.allard show details 5:21 AM (2 hours ago) - Forwarded message From: <Marc.Allard@alsapp1.atlantalegalservices.com> Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 4:01 AM Subject: Auto-Email Notification To: orly.taitz@gmail.com DAVID FARRAR vs. Your file# Our file# 94179 Mike Jablonsky was completed on 2012-02-20 at 0958 Manner: SUBSTITUTE Person Served: Mary Grace Diehl Wife/Co-Resident Address Of Service: 260 Brighton Rd. Atlanta GA 30305

4- The Douglas Courts holding confirms that petitions for review are analogous to notices of appeal. Such petitions are a request to review an administrative agencys decision. Such requests amount to an appeal. Georgia Election Code describes an appeal process: The elector filing the challenge of the candidate challenged shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by filing a petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County within ten days after the entry of the final decision by the Secretary of State. O.C.G.A. 21-2-5(e). The instant petition serves the function of a notice of appeal. Id. This is why the Douglas Court treated the petition in that case as a notice of appeal and

15

explicitly reviewed and applied this States service of process statutes applicable to service of notices of appeal. Id. 5- To argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction to overturn the decision of the Secretary of State in this case would be analogous to arguing that the Georgia Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to overturn a decision of the Georgia Appellate Court unless and until the Appellate Court is served with a summons as a named party. Respondents citation to O.C.G.A. 9-11-8(a)(2)(A) is equally absurd. This section describes the content required for a medical malpractice complaint. The instant petition is neither a complaint, nor any sort of initial civil filing, nor a medical malpractice matter. The instant petition is a notice of appeal pursuant to specific election code requirements. 6- The cases cited by Respondent also do not support his assertion that this Court lacks jurisdiction. In Schafer v. Wachovia Bank of Georgia the issue was whether a summons was properly issued by the Superior Court Clerk despite an entry of a Federal Bankruptcy stay. That Court was presented with a civil complaint which was an initial filing in a civil action. (The Schafer Court ruled that the summons was properly issued.) Schafer is not applicable to the instant case because the petition is not an initial civil filing, because the parties and the Secretary of State were served with a petition for review, and because the petition is statutorily required to serve as a notice of appeal. 7- The case cited by the Schafer Court which the Respondent asserts out of context also doesnt
support respondents position. In Diaz v. First Natl. Bank of Tucker the Georgia Appellate Court determined that under a specific Georgia code a party not served a summons was not subject to entry of a default judgment. 144 Ga.App. 582 (1978). This ruling was very specific to entry of default judgments under Georgia code in 1978. No party to the instant action has requested a default judgment. The Diaz Court went on to confirm that the Court did have
16

authority to add a new party as soon as the new party was served a copy of the complaint, and that serving that party with a summons was not required to create jurisdiction. Id. at 583. In the instant case the Secretary of State has been served a copy of the instant petition. Therefore, even if this Court didnt have jurisdiction over the Secretary of State due to the fact that the Secretary of State served in the capacity of a lower court and entered a final judgment, this Court still has jurisdiction over the Secretary of State because the Secretary of State has been issued a copy of the petition. Diaz, 144 Ga.App. 582, 583.

For the reasons set forth herein, the Petitioner(s) respectfully requests that this Court deny the Respondents motion to dismiss and grant Petitioner(s) their stay. Signed and Submitted this 2nd day of March ,2012 /s/Cody Robert Judy s/s David Farrar

17

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- RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 2nd 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 States Office Executive Office 214 State Capital Atlanta Georgia 30334 cc: Michael Jablonski, counsel for Barack Obama at michael.jablonski@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 2nd 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

18