This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
No. 12-___ ___________ IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
———— Cody Robert Judy,
v. Barrack Obama Brian Kemp
———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court for the Eleventh Circuit ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
CODY ROBERT JUDY Pro se Petitioner 3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite 2 Ogden, UT. 84403 www.codyjudy.us (801)497-6655 email@example.com
MICHAEL JABLONSKI Counsel of Record for BARACK OBAMA 260 Brighton Road NE Atlanta, GA. 30309-1523 404- 290-2977 firstname.lastname@example.org
CAM-ANH LE Crt. of State acting as Counsel of Record for BRIAN
KEMP VINCENT ROBERT RUSSO Executive Office 214 State Capital Atlanta GA. 30334 email@example.com , firstname.lastname@example.org
QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT MIGHT BE DECIDED:
Question – Are or should the respective State Political [ Democratic] Parties and
the Federal Elections Commission [be] bound to the candidate office qualifications specified and demanded by the United States Constitution, based upon the State and Federal funds used by such organizations promoting membership and public trust in State Primaries and General Elections, as they are currently bullying Primary Elections by certifications of Constitutionally unqualified candidates to Secretaries of State; and should the Secretary of State‟s not also be bound to the Constitution upon their oaths‟ and the public trust to secure in this case Federal elections, to diligently prohibit unqualified candidates from getting on the Ballot in Primaries, expressing preference of candidates for electorates to champion who may not be qualified to the Republic‟s peril?
Question - Is Respondent candidate Mr. Barack Obama eligible for the Office of
President according to the United States Constitution‟s demands for a „natural born citizen‟, with self revealed documented foreign allegiances of natural identity on his released long form birth certificate,(last page exhibit appendix) also reported as constituting probable cause for fraud and forgery by Sheriff law enforcement agencies Cold Case Posse to the Superior Court, by F.E.C. 2012 Registered Democratic Candidate for President Cody Robert Judy, whom also disputed candidate R.-AZ. Sen. McCain‟s and D. Ill. Sen. Obama‟s qualifications in 2008, asserting the harm of constitutional unfairness through campaign expenditures, and contributions to the unqualified candidate(s) in the publics‟ trust of the State Primaries and General Elections of 2012?
Question - Does evidence provided to the Court by Petitioner of a Sheriff Law
Enforcement Report (Appendix pg.16) constituting probable cause of fraud and forgery of Candidate Barack Obama‟s identity papers for qualification of the Office of President casting reasonable doubt on candidate‟s qualifications, if avoided by the Court, not constitute reprisal grounds for the release and pardon of all convicted of similar crimes for equal Justice under the law?
Petitioner Mr. Cody Robert Judy, qualified and registered F.E.C., Candidate for U.S. President in the Democratic Party in harmony with Dec 22nd 2011 findings of the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals which recognized standing precedent in the
eligibility arena of the demands of the Constitution for the office of President, in
Barnett v. Obama1 , and also a voter under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-6 stating “any voter”
eligible to vote for such candidate may challenge the qualifications of a candidate, has appealed to Administrative Courts in New Hampshire and Georgia and State appeal Courts respectfully citing disqualifying factors as evidence released by Barack Obama in contrast to qualification demands of the Constitution for the Office of the President for a „natural born citizen‟ that have been circumvented in candidate Barack Obama‟s instance by the Democratic Party, the lower courts, and State Secretaries to the Republic‟s peril and the hurt of his campaign for President being included on ballots, campaign expenditures, and contributions made to an illegal candidate which might have otherwise been given to his campaign. Mr. Judy‟s evidences have included expert witnesses and law enforcement investigations and come to the Court in time and ripeness with 5 months left before the September 2012 National Democratic Party convention, that its „supervisory powers‟ might alter lower court decisions discrepant with precedent and the U.S. Constitution‟s demands meriting review.
the political candidates who lost to Obama in 2008 would only have had standing to sue if
they had filed their complaint alleging unfair competition from an ineligible candidate before the election, the 9th Circuit judges said.) (The court said, and the defeated candidates "cannot claim competitive standing because they were no longer candidates when they filed their complaint."
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Pursuant to Rule 14.1(b), the parties here and in the proceeding in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are listed. Petitioners here and appellant below are: Cody Robert Judy
Respondent here and appellee below Mr. Barack Obama and Mr. Brian Kemp GA. Secretary of State
TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLES Pg. i Pg. ii
CAPTION OF THE CASE……………………………………………………………….. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT MIGHT BE DECIDED……………………..
INTRODUCTION ..….………………………………………………………. Pg. iii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING …………………………………………… Pg. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS .…..…………………………………………………. Pg. v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………. Pg. vi-vii STATUTES ………………………………………………………………… Pg. vii-viii BODY
VII. VIII. VIV. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV.
CITATIONS OF OFFICIAL & UNOFFICIAL ORDERS AND OPINION…..... Pg. 1-2 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT………………………………………….… STATUTORY PROVISIONS .……...………………………………………… Pg. 2 Pg. 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..…….………………………………………… Pg. 3-7 PETITIONER‟S CASE HISTORY……...…………………………………….. Pg.7-13 ARGUMENT ON APPEAL TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Q .#1 …… Pg. 14-25
ARGUMENT ON APPEAL TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Q .#2 …… Pg. 25-37 ARGUMENT ON APPEAL TO THE U.S. SUPREMECOURT Q .#3 SUMMARY …… Pg. 37-38
……………………………………………………………… Pg. 38 APPENDAGES
XVI. XVII. XIII.
DECLARATION OF MAILING CERTIFICATE AFFADAVIT…..……………... Pg.1 COVER APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENT ………………………………………Pg.2 APPENDIX……………………………………………………………Page Appendix 1-17
BARACK OBAMA‟S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE………….EXIBIT LAST PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000, (supporting Perkins v. Elg) ………………………………………………… 33 Anderson v. Celebrezze (quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. at 803 n.30)……… Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) …………………. Barnett v. Obama N o . 0 9 - 5 6 8 2 7 D . C . N o . 8 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 0 8 2 - D O C ANO P I NI O N … …… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . Bd. of Dir. of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537…………… Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) …………………………………… 20 9,26 iii 22 27
Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (upholding right of Boy Scouts to exclude gay scoutmaster); ………………………………………………………… 22
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975 ………………………….. 2
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) ……………………………………
Farrar v. Obama Superior Court of Fulton County ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY EXPARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION entered on Record March 15th,2012 Farrar v. Obama ………………………………………………………………. 2,5,7,10 Farrar v. Obama Superior Court of Fulton County ORDER Granting Respondent Barack Obama‟s MOTION TO DISMISS entered on Record March 2nd,2012 Farrar v. Obama …………………………………………………………………………. 2,5,7,10 General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 286 U.S. 49, 61 (1932) (two acts affect to both) ………………………………………………………………… 15 Georgia Administrative Hearing- Judge Michael Malihi Feb.3rd,2012 ………. 1 Haynes v. Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA. 2000) (Established Candidate burden of proof of eligibility) ……………………………………………………………………. 15 Judy v. McCain U.S. District Nevada Civil No. 2:08-cv-01162 …………………. Henderson‟s Tobacco, 78 U.S. 652 657 (1870)……………………………….
Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557 (1995)……………………………………………………………………. 22 Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709,710 (1974)………………………………… Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1805)………………………………….
Page Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) …………………………………… 4,25,27,28 Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008)……………………….. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974) ……………………………… 27 15
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); …………………..…………… 22 NAACP v. Alabama ex rei. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)……………. New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission-Taitz v. Obama Nov. 18th,2011……………………………………………………………………… Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) 307 U.S. 325, 350 …………………… Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (same);… … … … Rockefeller ll, 917 F. Supp. at 164. & /d………………………………… Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)…………………………… Swensson v. Obama appeal pending, No. S12D107 ………………………… Taitz v. Obama Ballot Law Commission New Hampshire…………………… 22 1 33 22 20 31 11 1
Taitz v. Obama Supreme Court State Of New Hampshire- Petition For Review Of An Unlawful And Unreasonable Ruling By An Administrative Agency Case No.: 2011-0E80………………………………………………………………………….. 1,5 Tashjian, 479 U.S. at 211; /d. at 212;/d. at 216-17, 225 ………………….. 21 The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)………………………………. United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939) …………………… United States v. Tynen, 78 U.S. 88 (1870); ………………………………… United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)……………………… Wood v. United States, 41 U.S. 342, 362-63 (1842) ……………………… .
Weldon v. Obama No. S12D1059 …………………………………………………
31 15 15 27,32 15
STATUTES U.S.C. Article I. Section.2. Clause 2 Section 3: Clause 4 Section 8: Clause 1 Section 10……………….. U.S.C. Article 2. Section 1.Clause 5 U.S.C. Article IV. Sect.2. Clause 2
Page 5,17,30 5,17,30 30 17,30 4,5,7,15,25,27,30,31 5,25
U.S.C. Article IV. Section 4 U.S.C. Article V. U.S.C. Article VI. Clause 2 Clause 3 U.S.C. Amendment XII U.S.C. Amendment XIV. Section 1. Section 3.
U.S.C. Amendment XV. Section 1 S Section 3 U.S.C. Amendment XX. Section 1.
Page 25 31 14,16 14, 17 24 9,26,27,34,35 26,27
U.S. Supreme Court Rules 10 (c) U.S. Supreme Court Rule 11 U.S. Supreme Court Rule 13 (1) U.S. Supreme Court 14.1(e)(v) U.S. Supreme Court 14.1 (b) (iv.) U.S. Supreme Court Rule 22.1 U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.4 (b)(c)
28 U.S.C. § 1257
2,7 2,6,7 7 8
28 U.S.C. §2101(e). 28 U. S. C. § 2403(a) 28 U. S. C. § 2403(b) 28 U. S. C. § 451 28 U. S. C. § 1746 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-6 O.C.G.A. section 21-2-5 Ga. Code Ann. § 2l-2-132(e)(4) (1998)
45,46 (iii) 9 16
Supreme Court of the United States
———— Cody Robert Judy,
v. Barrack Obama Brian Kemp
———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to United States Court for the Eleventh Circuit ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
CITATIONS OF THE OFFICIAL and UNOFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE OPINIONS AND ORDERS
1New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission- Nov. 18th,2011 Taitz v. Obama (Appendix Pg 1.#1) 2Supreme Court State Of New Hampshire- Petition For Review Of An
Unlawful And Unreasonable Ruling By An Administrative Agency Case No.: 20110E80 Taitz v. Obama (Appendix Pg. 1.#2)
Georgia Administrative Hearing- Judge Michael Malihi Feb.3rd,2012 Farrar v.
Obama (Appendix Pg.1-7#3)
Farrar v. Obama - Superior Court of Fulton County ORDER Granting
Respondent Barack Obama‟s MOTION TO DISMISS entered on Record March 2nd,2012 (Appendix Pg. 8-10 #4 a.). 5Farrar v. Obama - Superior Court of Fulton County ORDER DENYING
EMERGENCY EXPARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION entered on Record March 15th,2012.( Appendix Pg.9 #4 b.) VIII. JURISDICTION STATEMENT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
The date of the Order(s) & Opinion sought to be reviewed consist of the Final Order(s) from the Fulton County GA. Superior Court Farrar v. Obama # 2012-CV211398 handed down March 2nd,2012 and a subsequent Order on reconsideration on March 15th,2012, Further, and on the NOTICE OF APPEAL dated March 23rd,2012 (Appendix pg.17) application is filed pursuant and under U.S. Supreme Court 10(c), and Rule 11 citing that this case is “ of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in the U.S. Supreme Court reflected by 28 U.S.C. §2101(e). This case concerns every State in the Union and every voting citizen and the timing of the election of political party nominees is a priority with the Democratic National Convention the first week in September 2012. (Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420
U.S. 469 (1975) state court decisions that do not end a case but nonetheless are effectively definitive with respect to the federal issue may qualify as final.)
Cody Robert Judy petitioner pro se herein does respectfully submit this PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
Because of the statutory provisions being lengthy are set forth in the Appendix.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case represents a journey across state lines by Petitioner Cody Robert
Judy, hereafter “Judy”, Democratic Candidate for President, challenging the qualifications of Barack Obama, hereafter Obama, with the procedures set forth by the independent states of New Hampshire and Georgia before their Primaries to do three things: a. Remove Obama, from the Primary Ballots because he‟s not qualified to run
for the Office of President citing deviations from the two prong test of „natural born citizen‟, uniquely divest of any foreign allegiance for two generations required for the Office of President: i. ii. b. Born in the United States To Citizen Parents Showing every pillar of evidence that related to Obama‟s deficiencies of both
requirements to appropriate courts established to discern the qualifications of candidates for the office according to the Constitution before the Primary Elections of each State, representing millions of voters with the trust that each candidate is qualified for the office they are voting for in those Primaries, of which electors are weighted to vote for in the respective National Political Party Conventions. c. Finally, to get on the Ballot either by causing the Democratic Party Chairs
of each respective State to recommend Judy‟s name be placed on the State Ballot to respective Secretary of States in charge of the ballots, by virtue of Democrats not
having a qualified candidate to run with the elimination of Obama, or at least to get on the ballot with Obama so if he‟s eliminated before the National Democratic Convention or sued by the Republican Candidate after Republicans finalize a nominee for not being qualified, the Democratic Party members are secure in having a person dually qualified under the Constitution for the general election that is representative of the Primary process. 2The Petitioner began his complaint officially in 2012 against the Respondent
Barack Obama by petitioning the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission that Barack Obama was not eligible for the Office of President which he sought in the election of 2012 held in the demands of U.S.C. Article II, Section.1.Clause 5 and U.S. Supreme Court precedent of Minor v. Happersett , and also showing the many instances which provided reasonable and probable cause that the Candidate was not qualified in a list of deficiencies including documents and reports by official agencies of the United States government such as the Social Security Administration and the Selective Service Board that were produced and evidence from former federal government and Scotland Yard investigators, private investigators, computer software experts, scanner experts, typographer experts and forensic document examiners that were made available to the Commission all to have the Commission represent that they had never disqualified a candidate for not being eligible as long as he paid the $1,000 and swore to the eligibility requirements. However, this just wasn‟t true to the record as in 2008 the commission removed Sal Mohamed; who was removed from the ballot because he was not a Natural Born
Citizen, being born in Egypt. This decision was appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court Taitz v. Obama with no ruling as yet. 3Second State stop Georgia, Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of State who
referenced the complaint to an Administrative Court OSAH Farrar v. Obama and was given an opinion and ruling so far departing from U.S. Supreme Court precedent and Legislative counsel refusing to change the Constitution, as to render any and all references to U.S.C. Art. II, Sect. 1,Clause 5‟s „natural born citizen‟ qualification obsolete to U.S.C.‟s XIV. Amend. Sect. 1, „Citizen‟. The difference between 2 generations and 1 generation is the first generation can be a foreign applicant under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fulton County GA. Superior Court was appealed to with similar devastating results to the Constitution‟s demand of a natural born citizen, uniquely designed for the Office of the President and contrasting demands for the ”Citizen” requirement for Representatives and Senators in U.S.C. Art. 1, Sect 2 and Sect. 4 accept the Superior Court ruled in essence the State has no control whatsoever over the Democratic Party recommending a unqualified candidate be placed on the ballot, rather than actually dissecting the law language the Administrative Court‟s made in the Malihi Order or reviewing the evidence, ultimately leading to the Secretary of State‟s decision to keep Obama on the ballot. A FINAL OPINION AND ORDER against Petitioner was entered on Friday, March 2nd,2012, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT BARACK OBAMA‟S MOTION(S) TO DISMISS Farrar v. Obama .(Order in entirety Appendix pg.6-9) On Monday, March 5th,2012 an Emergency Exparte Motion for Reconsideration was filed prior Super Tuesday‟s Primary held March 6th2012 in
Georgia as the Court of last resort to keep Obama‟s name off the ballot necessitating other candidates to be included on the ballot. 4Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp Certified the result March 14th2012
with Barack Obama receiving 100% of the vote. Citing Link : http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/GA-D showing no opposition within the Democratic Party results in the Preference Primary in Georgia, as well Citing link: http://www.sos.ga.gov/pressrel/elections/20120314Secretary%20of%20State%20Kem p%20Certifies%20Presidential%20Preference%20Primary%20Results.htm Certification does not preclude the state from continuing any current investigations related to the special elections, or from pursuing any future allegations that may arise from these elections. Secretary of State is charged with conducting efficient and secure elections. 5On March 15th, 2012, following the Secretary of State‟s certification, the
FINAL ORDER on the Emergency Exparte Motion for Reconsideration was entered closing the case and opening the case for Appeal. a. Respondents had been legally served necessitating their response:
Our file# 94179 Counsel for Barack Obama -Mike Jablonsky was completed on -0220 at 0958…Manner: SUBSTITUTE Person Served: Mary Grace Diehl – Wife/CoResidentAddress Of Service: 260 Brighton Rd. Atlanta GA 30305 Comments: Please check http://www.atlantalegalservices.com
b. Our file# 94252 Office of the Atty General was completed on 2012-02-21 at 1015...Manner: CORPORATE Person Served: Alicia Britt - Admin Clerk, Law Office
Address Of Service:40 Capitol Sq., Rm 122 Atlanta GA 30334 Comments: Please check http://www.atlantalegalservices.com 6NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT was signed and mailed the March 23rd 2012.( Appendix pg 17)
PETITIONER‟S CASE HISTORY
On November 1, 2011, the Democratic Party of Georgia notified the Georgia
Secretary of State that the only candidate that should appear on the Democratic Presidential primary ballot would be Barack Obama.
On Dec. 9th2011, an „Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief‟
that superseded the Original was filed that added Petitioner Judy to the Complaint
Farrar v. Obama as a Presidential Candidate registered with the FEC as a
Democrat, as well a Pre-Trial Order which defined the two questions for the Administrative Court to consider as follows: a. i. b. Whether Barack Obama is eligible for the Presidential Ballot in Georgia. U.S.C. Article II, Section.1. Clause 5. Whether other candidates should be allowed on the Presidential Ballot in
Georgia. 3The following was presented as a list of Plaintiff Exhibits and their relevance
in the matter showing probable cause to the Petitioners complaint that Obama was ineligible and the Democratic Party would be left without any candidate if it were not given a chance to place others on the Ballot prior the March 6th,2012 Preference Primary thereby dis-enfranchising over a million Georgia preferential primary votes. a. Pl. Affidavit of Licensed investigator, certified by the Department of
Homeland Security, Susan Daniels, showing Obama, using a Connecticut SSN 04268-4425
P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland
Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-684425 and stating, that there is no legitimate reason for him to use a Connecticut SSN, as he was never a resident of Connecticut. c. P3. Affidavit of Adobe illustrator expert Felichito Papa, showing Obama's
alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery. d. P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan attesting to the fact' that SSN 042-68-
4425' used by Obama does not pass E-Verify. e. P5. Affidavit of attorney OrIy Taitz, and Selective Service printout, showing
Obama using CT SSN 042-68-44245. f. P6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and
official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that SS 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached email from Colonel Gregory Hollister. g. P7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felichito Papa, showing that Obama
is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns. h. P8. Affidavit of printing and scanning machines expert Douglas Vogt,
attesting to the fact, that Obama's alleged copy of his birth certificate, is indeed a forgery. i. P9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours
after the alleged birth of Obama in Kapiolani hospital, looking completely different
from the copy Obama presented as his long form birth certificate to Secretary of State Brian Kemp the day before the Trial. j. Pl0. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama' mother of Barack
Obama „showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama's passport records under FOIA. 4Pursuant to O.C.G.A. section 21-2-5 the Petitioner filed a timely challenge
with the Secretary of State. Said challenge alleged that defendant Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President. Pursuant to Georgia law the challenge was referred by the Secretary of State to the Office of State Administrative Hearings (“OSAH”). Defendant Obama responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 15, 2011. That motion was denied by the OSAH on January 3, 2011. On December 20, 2011, the OSAH consolidated the instant challenge with several others filed against Defendant Obama. A motion for separate hearings was granted. The matter was heard by the OSAH on January 26, 2011. On February 3, the OSAH issued an initial decision in favor of the Defendant. On February 7th the Secretary of State‟s Office formally adopted the initial decision of the Administrative Law Judge (OSAH) as its final decision. 5February 3rd,2012, The Administrative Court ruled against Petitioner citing
U.S.C. Amend. XIV. and a non-binding opinion from an Indiana State Appellate Court
to support its conclusion. See Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)
actually violating venerable rules of Constitutional Construction.
The Petitioner appealed to the Fulton County GA. Superior Court and there
Petitioner‟s attorney who had been granted pro hac vice in the Administrative Court was denied and Petitioner was forced to continue on pro se with the aforementioned attorney actually inciting the Court with egregious public statements about the Judge‟s Wright‟s prior personal history in criminal case involving a relationship she was involved with, and unwilling to assist petitioner whatsoever, all noted in the Emergency Exparte Motion for Reconsideration. 7In addition to the Record of witnesses Mrs. Taitz Esq. was rushed in deposing
by the Administrative Court Judge Malihi referenced in his Order (Appendix pg 26 ), on March 1st2012 Arizona‟s Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio released the results of a 6 month 2,200 hour Cold Case Posse investigation on the legitimacy of the Respondent Barack Obama‟s long form birth certificate that was released by Respondent Obama to the White House press core April 27th 2011 , as well as Respondent Obama‟s draft registration form. The results of the Cold Case Posse investigation (Appendix pg.16 #81) ordered by executive authority resulted in the affirmation of “probable cause” existing, that both documents were forgeries, altered, or fraudulently created, and thusly used in the acts of deception towards legitimacy of eligibility; perpetrating the trust of government, civic organization, and the public trust at large in soliciting contributions towards the Office of the Presidency and knowingly being an unqualified candidate, resulting in an unlawful bias and prejudice towards the Petitioner in the Presidential contest or race in 2008, as well as the current 2012 election that has caused Judy and his campaign(s) harm and
hurt deserving of compensation and perhaps even criminal charges needing to be filed against Obama. a. This information was heard in the Superior Court of Fulton County Georgia
Farrar v. Obama “Response to Motion to Dismiss” upon which the Court gave ruling
and opinion March 2nd2012 and March 15th2012 and knowingly the Judge refused to make the appropriate lawful response in Order, to the report of commission of crimes to the Attorney General, or at the very least submit to the Georgia Supreme Court certified questions in the seriousness of the circumstances. b. The Secretary of State of Georgia as a Respondent, lawfully served, received
every bit of information also and either refused to properly channel the criminal allegations to the Attorney General or covered it up in conspiracy of aiding and abetting the commission of high crimes or misdemeanors that actually has the action of disenfranchising by fraud all of Georgia‟s Democratic Party members in the Preferential Primary held March 6th2012., as well acting as an accomplice against the Petitioner in the malfeasances. 8Pending on pro hac vice motion for leave: GA. State Supreme Court Farrar v.
Obama in which attorney Orly Taitz Esq. refused to include petitioner Cody Robert Judy who had written all the pleadings in the Superior Court after Mrs. Taitz had been denied pro hac vice; that included what he felt were inappropriate public remarks she made during the case he was still filing pleadings in, that had to do with the Judge being shot in a former relationship. Farrar concurred with Judy in the Emergency Motion for Reconsideration but is persuaded to leave Judy in further
appeal due to Mrs. Taitz Esq paying for the Appeal(s) and representing pro bono in Farrar‟s indigent status. a. Among the cases lumped together it should also be noted here that an Appeal
to the GA. State Supreme Court for a Stay was denied in Swensson v. Obama appeal pending, No. S12D107 filed March 12,2012, and Weldon v. Obama No.
S12D1059 pending filed March 7th 2012. These two cases were a part of the original
Administrative Court Malihi Order as well as March 2nd ,2012 denial of Superior Court Wright‟s Order granting Obama‟s Motion to Dismiss. 9A brief statement about timing here is necessary to understand the urgency
of the matter in reviewing this Petition and granting the writ. Mr. Judy campaign has been in the news all over the Country that started in Iowa, then to New Hampshire, then to Georgia. Mr. Judy‟s YouTube Station has to date (3-2-12) 156 related campaign videos and commercials that fully competes with Gov. Romney‟s campaign YouTube Station on the Republican side. Mr. Judy has a web site that is over 75 pages long featuring all the latest updates, news reports, and platform featured in his Presidential run at www.codyjudy.us. , that also features a Blog of over 150 entries and articles. Mr. Judy has published a book featuring his platform called “Taking A Stand- the conservative independent voice” that is available at any book store and featured at Barnes & Noble. The point here is Mr. Judy has very specific and target related campaigns going in the various states and a central feature of his campaign is in fact how he would preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. That said, Barack Obama also running in the Democratic Party is a walking talking violation of the constitution as a candidate although his fund
raising abilities have been outdoing Judy‟s, The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 U.S.C. Eligibility Campaign has received contributions from near half of the United States. Citizens who are concerned across this Country representing their States in the Union looking to Mr. Cody Robert Judy to show them how he would act as President doing the job his oath would require. Now Mr. Judy wouldn‟t be acting like a very good candidate if he was sweeping Obama‟s ineligibility under the carpet or hadn‟t at least appealed to the highest court in the land for its “Supervisory Powers” to straighten wondering and wavering lower courts. Mr. Judy doesn‟t have 6 more months to appeal to any other Court because of the Democratic National Convention coming up in September 2012, where he hopes to be able to write all the delegates and report the ineligibility of Barack Obama persuading them if they have pledged and Obama‟s still in the race to change their mind based on the corruption in Obama‟s eligibility requirements and documentation, or if Obama is not in the race anymore fully court the electors there. This is a viable option presented for the Court‟s „supervisory powers‟ to have an effect, and is presented in a timely way, with ripeness and conflict in a matter that the Court can indeed settle before it‟s too late for literally millions of Americans who count on the Constitution being upheld by the United States Supreme Court. While Mr. Judy‟s campaign is broke, it‟s not half a million in the hole as Speaker Gingrich‟s campaign was or Mr. Huntsman‟s ended up. 10This Court has never had a candidate for President in the Democratic Party
come before it objecting to Barack Obama‟s qualifications with a law enforcement reports and expert witnesses on the record from lower courts in multiple states
strongly advocating the Constitution is in breach in a timely ripe fashion for the Court‟s decision to proceed without adversely affecting an election that has already taken place. These factors make the case unique still half the union is set to engage in Primaries over the course of the next 3 months including some of the biggest electoral states. Given these factors there is no reason to think Mr. Judy‟s Campaign is not a viable campaign that the Constitution can‟t help the same way the Mr. Judy is helping preserve, protect, and defend it, if the Constitution‟s demands for a „natural born citizen‟ are upheld by this Court. XII. a. ARGUMENT ON APPEAL TO THE U.S. SUPREME QUESTION 1. Considering the elections in the Federal arena, the Superior State Court had
a duty to not only uphold the Constitution but according to Georgia law see to it that the ballot didn‟t have an unqualified candidate on it by reviewing the Administrative Court‟s Constitutional reasoning and interpretation in light of the U.S. Supreme Court Precedent cases involved or at the very least certifying questions to the GA. Supreme Court. b. The hearts of the A.G‟s of the respective States must be melting as to whom
they could trust to criminal prosecute such crimes as Obama has appointed the U.S. Attorney General who‟s unlikely to pick up charges against his boss. (U.S.C. Article IV. Sect.2. Clause 2, & Sect.4 ) c. Petitioner seems to be left without an advocate in any Attorney General‟s
office to assert criminal charges and must therefore appeal in civil complaint for damages while the Congress winks and the U.S. Supreme Court is on record of “avoiding” that question which if continued clearly violates Petitioner‟s Rights
pursuant U.S.C. Amendment XIV. Sect 1. [No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State][deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws.] Citing also U.S.C. Article IV. Sect.2. Clause 2 and Sect. 4.: which protects against domestic violence and assures a Republic for Judy/every/ Citizen. d. The States are indeed the first line of defense for the Constitution being
enforced if the Federal Election Commission has no duty towards the Constitutional requirements of the highest office in the land controlled by the U.S. Constitution demand for a natural born citizen. The Constitution literally melts at the usurpation of the Office of the Presidency as 13 pages of the Pamphlet The
Constitution of the United States are referenced to the Presidency outnumbering
every other aspect of the Constitution by at least 10 to 1. e.
The “natural born citizen” clause of U.S.C. Art.II Sect.1, clause 5 is the statute
upon which Petitioner is held to in qualification for running for the Office of President. The early Supreme Court established the relevant rule of Constitutional construction in
Marbury v. Madison: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is
intended to be without effect; and therefore such a construction is inadmissible.” 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1805). This rule is still in effect and a similar rule is used for statutory construction: “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible…The intention of the legislature to repeal must be clear and manifest.” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939). See also, Morton v.
Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974); United States v. Tynen, 78 U.S. 88 (1870); Henderson‟s Tobacco, 78 U.S. 652 657 (1870); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v.
United States, 286 U.S. 49, 61 (1932); Wood v. United States, 41 U.S. 342, 362-63
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.] Respondent Obama didn‟t even show up, boycotted his own Administrative Hearing. [The case notes that under the Official Code of Georgia, when filing a notice of candidacy a candidate must swear by affidavit "[t]hat he or she is an elector of the county or municipality of his or her residence eligible to vote in the election in which he or she is a candidate." Ga. Code Ann. § 2l2-132(e)(4) (1998). The court therefore held, 'Thus the statutes place the affirmative obligation on Haynes to establish his qualification for office. Wells is not required to disprove anything regarding Haynes‟s eligibility to run for office, as the entire burden is placed upon Haynes to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office. He failed to make that showing. Hence, his candidacy for the fifth district seat was invalid." See Haynes, 538 S.E.2d 430, 433 (Ga. 2000). (Emphasis added)] Respondent Obama failed to show any documentation he was born in the United States for the Cold Case Posse has proven it to be a fraud or forgery made up of lots of pieces, and Obama hasn‟t rescinded the document released as his long form birth certificate to the media and public as prohibitive of his eligibility due to his father not being a U.S. Citizen and his Mother not being a Citizen five years after her 14th Birthday able to confer U.S. Citizenship, if the document was to be considered valid. Either way Obama is not eligible to be on the Ballots and has ultimately lied on his Declaration of Candidacy hoping no one could prove it and sealing most all of his
other identification records with his first act following the usurpation. The Respondent Obama has yelled at the top of his lungs he is not eligible and the Courts haven‟t heard him, but continue to insist he is eligible contrary to the Constitution and their oaths. U.S.C. Article VI. Clause 2: [This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, and Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.] Clause 3:[The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the Several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;]
g. While Federal elections are held in the separate States, collectively the United
States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and right now there are many Administrative Court proceedings going on that are ignoring U.S. Supreme Court precedent and running amuck the Constitution‟s demands for a „natural born citizen‟ as a qualification of the Office of the President and instead inserting and constructing the qualification demands of “Citizen” made for a U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator in U.S.C. Article I. Section.2.,Clause 2: [ 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,]. Section.3, Clause 4:[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,]. Section.8. Clause 1: [ The Congress shall have Power To] Section.10: [ to define and
punish][Offenses against the Law of Nations;] to be diluted into the Office of the President, which clearly opens the door to foreign influence, domination, and usurpation of U.S. Sovereignty, the U.S. military superiority, as well as the U.S. Treasury demonstrating a national security threat as well as an economic threat to the United States.
The Administrative Court Judge, Secretary of State of GA., and the Superior
Court Judge should be held to honor the U.S. Constitution over the Democratic Party Chair‟s recommendation of an ineligible candidate. While the burden is on the Respondent to prove he is eligible, Petitioner provided ample evidence to dispute the Declaration of Candidacy made by the Respondent in New Hampshire and thus Georgia with credible law enforcement officials and expert witnesses attesting, for the convenience of the court, that probable cause exist not to excuse the Respondent for lies and fraud perpetrated upon the voters and electorate of the United States
4QUESTION Are or should the respective State Political [ Democratic] Parties
and the Federal Elections Commission [be] bound to the candidate office qualifications specified and demanded by the United States Constitution, based upon the State and Federal funds used by such organizations promoting membership and public trust in State Primaries and General Elections, as they are currently bullying Primary Elections by certifications of Constitutionally unqualified candidates to Secretaries of State; and should the Secretary of State‟s not also be bound to the Constitution upon their oaths‟ and the public trust to secure in this case Federal elections, to diligently prohibit unqualified candidates
from getting on the Ballot in Primaries expressing preference of candidates for electorates to champion who may not be qualified to the Republic‟s peril?
The important question is provided to the Court as a measure or safeguard to
the Constitution because currently the door is open with the Federal Election Commission which registers candidates for office who are not eligible or qualified to run for the office they register for. Is the reporting governmental agency chosen by Congress to guard illegal or foreign monies coming into campaigns so inept that it cannot at the least certify that Federal Candidates are qualified to legally hold the office and thereby solicit campaign dollars? The deficit adds up to violations of the Constitution‟s qualification demands for Candidates, and not quite as bad but very deceptive in practice the calculated federal authorization for a person to represent themselves as qualified under the Constitution when they are not, to the most vulnerable victims who contribute believing that they are contributing to a Constitutionally qualified candidate. To the Citizen‟s intelligence what motivates a Federal Agency responsible for Federal Elections Candidates authorizing illegal candidate to collect campaign contributions and keeping track of it for them? Are we not required to hand over a license of identity and an operational constraint if an officer pulls us over driving a car? The Constitution has constraints to every office that must be adhered to in order to avoid accidents with the public trust. b. In the Motion To Dismiss to the Superior Court Respondent Obama claimed
the State of Georgia cannot interfere with the Democratic Party, although the Democratic Party provides recommendations for representation in the Primary that by the way is supported by Tax dollars, they provided a candidate that is not
eligible under the demands of the Constitution. So the logic is that the Democratic Party can override the United States Constitution when it comes to a State Election of Federal Offices, which totally destroys the U.S. Supreme Court‟s edict, releases all the U.S. Justices, and wipes out the Supreme Law of the Land. That kind of sounds like it would ring true for a Usurper of the White House who would like to destroy the Republic for which we as United States Citizens pledge our allegiance in the pledge of allegiance.
Cody Robert Judy‟s ability to be on the ballot has precedent standing.
Rockefeller ll, 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 .... 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 the candidate of the party leadership. (U.S.C. Amendment XV. Sect. 1. Votes not denied by any)
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.
g. 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.3 Like general elections, party primaries exist as a major avenue for political participation. Our political system provides few opportunities f o r 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 f o r most Americans. Primaries have become an "integral part of the state‟s electoral machinery, ballot access laws hinder this form of political participation b y restricting the voters' opportunity to cast a ballot for petitioner Cody Robert Judy.
_______________________________ 3 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 law 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.
Indeed, what distinguishes democratic participation from the
participation reminiscent of elections conducted in Communist 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.
In 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.
k. 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 p r i mar y ballot 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.
The lower Court erred in either not eliminating Barack Obama‟s name
from the Ballot so that the Democratic Party could submit other name(s); or at the very least, allowing Cody Robert Judy‟s name to be place on the Ballot so that the Democratic Party would not have been without representation at all when Barack Obama is found unqualified in the Appeal. Cody Robert Judy had 3 time specific Television and Internet Commercials made for Georgia that coincided with the Primary that cost his campaign and candidacy great loss monetarily by not being allowed on the Ballot in Georgia. There is still a Democratic National Convention to challenge away Electors (U.S.C. Amendment XII. ) who were previously pledged to an unqualified candidate, however the
general populations voting in the Primary have basically lost their right to vote or influence electors at the National Democratic Convention. (U.S.C. Amend. XX. Sect 1. No successor after Bush-Obama a disability.)
XIII. 1ARGUMENT ON APPEAL TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT QUESTION 2
Is Respondent candidate Mr. Barack Obama eligible for the Office of
President according to the United States Constitution‟s demands for a „natural born citizen‟, with self revealed documented foreign allegiances of natural identity on his released long form birth certificate, also reported as constituting probable cause for fraud and forgery by Sheriff law enforcement agencies Cold Case Posse to the Superior Court, by F.E.C. 2012 Registered Democratic Candidate for President Cody Robert Judy, whom also disputed candidate R.-AZ. Sen. McCain‟s and D. Ill. Sen. Obama‟s qualifications in 2008, asserting the harm of constitutional unfairness through campaign expenditures, and contributions to the unqualified candidate(s) in the publics‟ trust of the State Primaries and General Elections of 2012? (U.S.C. Article IV. Sect.2. Clause 2, Sect 4). a.
Appellant/Petitioner in the Administrative Court and Superior Court charged the
Respondent Barack Obama with not being qualified by the demands of Constitution in U.S.C. Article II, Section. 1., Clause 5 [ No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;]
The precedent case relied upon in the argument here is Minor v. Happersett ,
88 U.S. 162 (1875) The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-
born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with
the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or naturalborn citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. Had the drafters of the Constitution intended all people born
in the U.S. to be considered natural born citizens, the XIV.(14th) Amendment would not have been necessary. Had the drafters of the XIV. (14th) Amendment intended that Amendment to alter the Article II definition of natural born citizen, they would have clearly stated so. Yet the term “natural born citizen” is not found anywhere within the XIV.(14th) Amendment. The Amendment also makes no reference to Article II. The OSAH ruling, therefore, violates rules of construction that the OSAH had itself relied upon just days earlier in the same litigation. The OSAH decision ignores a precedential holding from the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of dicta from a later Supreme Court case. The OSAH decision relies upon a non-binding opinion from an Indiana State Appellate Court to support its conclusion. See Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The Indiana opinion relied upon was litigated by pro-se citizens of Indiana against the Governor of that state. Id. The Indiana court reached its holding via an issue that didn‟t require interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, yet that court then proceeded to construe the U.S. Constitution as an independent means of reaching its holding. Id. at 684-85. The Indiana court‟s decision to construe the U.S. Constitution without need to do so also represents yet another violation of venerable rules of construction and judicial restraint. The OSAH‟ s reliance upon the Indiana court‟s
opinion, rather than follow a precedential holding of the U.S. Supreme Court, further demonstrates the OSAH‟s errors of law. OSAH‟ s decision reads the term “natural born” into the language of the 14th Amendment. It also reads the words “natural born” into the holding of the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark. 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Neither the 14th Amendment nor the holding of Wong Kim Ark include the term “natural born.” As discussed more fully below, the Wong Kim Ark court was determining the meaning of the term “citizen” under the 14th Amendment. Id. at 705. Its holding was explicitly identified as its holding. Id. Its holding was fact-specific. Id. Its holding neither mentioned Article II nor the term of “natural born.” Id. The OSAH in the instant case ruled that the XIV.th (14) Amendment term “citizen” means the same thing as Article II “natural born citizen.” Yet there is nothing in the 14th Amendment that supports the OSAH conclusion. By its own statement on constitutional interpretation, the OSAH simply is “not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” (quoting Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008); Blum
v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006)). Citizen simply does not have the same legal
meaning as the term “natural born citizen.” The OSAH‟s ruling to the contrary is an error of law. The OSAH‟ s conclusion not only violates the above precedent and rules of construction, it runs contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
The United States Supreme Court defined the term “natural born citizen” in
Minor v. Happersett. 88 U.S. at 167. The Minor Court established that “it was never
doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Id. It is clear that the Minor Court was referring to the term “natural born citizen,” as it appears in Article II of the
Constitution because, in the paragraph preceding the definition quoted here, that Court quoted the Article II requirement that the President must be a “natural born citizen.” The Minor Court‟s definition of natural born citizen is immediately followed by a statement that “there have been doubts” about the broader class of people identified as “citizens.” Id. However, this statement is immediately followed by the clarification that there have “never been doubts” as to the narrower class of natural born citizens. Id. This understanding of the Minor Court‟s statement is supported by its extensive discussion of the broader term “citizen” at the beginning of the Court‟s opinion. Id. at 166. The Court concludes its discussion of the term “citizen” by stating, “When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.” Id. The Court, therefore, clearly established that the term “citizen” in its opinion was to be understood to be very broad. With this in mind, the Minor Court‟s statement is unambiguous: it established two distinct classes of people, citizens and natural born citizens; “citizen” is a broad term that is inclusive of all “natural born citizens.” Id. All natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens; as to the outer limits of the term “citizen” there are doubts; and as to the definition of “natural born citizen” there have “never been doubts”. Id.
The definition of natural born citizen was part of the Minor Court‟s opinion
because that Court explicitly stated that it had to determine whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen before it could determine whether she had a constitutional right to vote. Id. at 167. Because the Minor Court‟s definition of “natural born citizen” was pivotal to reaching its holding, the Court‟s definition is part of its holding and is, therefore, also precedent. See Black‟s Law Dictionary 737 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 7th ed., West 1999) (see also Id. at 1195 defining “precedent” and quoting James Parker Hall, American
Law and Procedure xlviii (1952); see also Black‟s Law Dictionary at 465, distinguishing
“dictum gratis”). In order to reach its holding, the Minor Court first had to determine whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen. It explicitly did so by determining that she was a natural born citizen: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Id. at 167. Because both of Mrs. Minor‟s parents were U.S. citizens at the time she was born, and she was born in the U.S., she was a natural born citizen. Id. Because all natural born citizens are also within the broader category “citizen,” Mrs. Minor was a citizen. Because the Minor Court‟s definition of “natural born citizen” was pivotal to reaching its holding, the Court‟s definition is part of its holding and is, therefore, also precedent. See Black‟s
Law Dictionary 737 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 7th ed., West 1999) (see also Id. at 1195
defining “precedent” and quoting James Parker Hall, American Law and Procedure xlviii (1952); see also Black‟s Law Dictionary at 465, distinguishing “dictum gratis”).
The saddest commentary for freedom and liberty has been the manipulation of
Congressional Research Service (CRS) under Jack Maskell which has manipulated deceptively the findings of Minor v. Happersett to Congress in the request from Congressman for precedent understanding. The CRS Memorandum devised a construction treasonously excluding from the “natural born citizen” definition „born in the U.S. to Citizen parents‟ in favor of “Citizen” interpretive by the XIV.(14th) Amendment, thereby changing the Constitution for Congressmen one Congressmen at a time. This was elaborated by the Petitioner in his commentary show The Lion‟s Den Show with Cody Robert Judy in a 2 part series on June 5th, 2011 found on YouTube Channel CODE4PRES entitled “Dumb and Dumber”, “Dumb & Dumber the CRS and
Congress make Stupid” showing as the CRS Memo on page 13 advised Congress that the case represented: that Citizens “even of alien parentage” could be President, when her parents in the Minor Case were both Citizens. This was just an atrocity and a void of the trust CRS has throughout the years worked to make.
However, Appellant/Petitioner has never thought one had to rely on the Supreme
Court Cases to interpret „natural born citizen‟, for the Constitution deductively does declare a definition itself if it is looked upon as a whole through the qualification demands of a Representative and Senator found in U.S.C. Art. I Sect. 2 and Sect. 3 clearly noted as, “Years a Citizen”; compatible also to the XIV. (14th) Amendment “are citizens”; and Article II exemption clause “Citizen of the U.S., at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution; that all contrast with the qualification demand of “natural born citizen” for the Office of President for all who were born after the adoption of the Constitution obviously to Citizen parents clearly avoiding foreign influence, with the Law Of Nations being mentioned in U.S.C. Article I., Section. 8, Clause 10. To conclude foreign influence was wanted in the Office of President is naïve or ignorant at best, and treasonous as worst to those educated.
The whole idea of instituting the „natural born citizen‟ requirement was to put
two (2) generations between foreign influence and the Office of the President so that no empirical foreign determination could ascend to the Presidency in one ( l) lifetime with the hope that through the two (2) generation gap „nature‟ and „nurture‟ could have its affect upon devotion and loyalty towards the principles of the Constitution. Appellant used the Congressional Hearings & testimonies held in 2000 debating allowing foreign born citizens to be President. Congress has always upheld the “natural born citizen” demand that becomes also the responsibility of the Judicial Branch to take a stand for.
From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there have been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II ,Section I, Clause 5 – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee All of it taking placing during Barack Obama‟s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.( U.S.C. Art. V.)
The other places the Supreme Court has considered natural born citizen
contributing to the education and bewilderment of the general public at the audacity of Obama‟s deception: The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) Vattel,
who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) Ann Scott was born in South
Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the
citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) The citizens are the members of
the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) At common law, with
the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or naturalborn citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
was a decision by the Supreme Court
of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not
lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens."But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship." The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. Below is the relevant change to Hamilton‟s proposed language detailed in Jay‟s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a
strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national
Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new
Constitutional Republic. Through Article II‟s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the "natural born Citizens" who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents. Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one
were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born citizen.”As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a
President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States.
It‟s important to note the reversal must be equally applied to „natural born
citizens‟ either having children outside the United States, or procreating with foreigners, for the offspring not to be considered being a „natural born citizen‟ by reason of being born outside the United States or having a foreign parent or a nonU.S. Citizen at the time of birth. The offspring can be maintained as a Citizen according to the XIV (14th) Amendment as Judy v. McCain U.S. District Nevada
Civil No. 2:08-cv-01162-expressed from the plaintiff‟s Judy‟s arguments. Sen. John
McCain was first naturalized by an Act of Congress 11 months after his birth on foreign soil – Panama- and then egotistically or through non-binding Resolution 511 given „natural born citizen‟ status albeit not worth a single letter of the Constitution. Natural born citizens‟ don‟t need Acts of Congress to declare them natural born citizens and the very act of Congress defying nature is an aberration of politically corrupt incest.
Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution during a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor: As to the question of citizenship I am willing
to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and
by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used
by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.) Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US. John Bingham, aka “Father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln‟s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor: All
from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. - (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)) Then in 1866,
Bingham also stated on the House floor: Every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.... (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) q. Like any investigated crime new facts are being uncovered and revealed
every day affirming Appellant/Petitioner Cody Robert Judy‟s position and charges against Respondent Barack Obama not being an eligible candidate for the office of the President. March 21st Affidavit of Timothy Lee Adams a Senior Elections Clerk May
through September of 2008 affirms he was told by senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division to stop inquiring about Sen. Barack Obama‟s birth records
even though it was common knowledge among his fellow employees that no long form Hawaii generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama. This testimony confirms fraudulent claims found by the Cold Case Posse in AZ. Continuing its investigation recently reported at: http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/mailman-discouraged-from-telling-obama-story/
a mailman has come forward with an affidavit that Mary Ayers told him of helping a “foreign” student and then Obama‟s statement, in a matter-of-fact way was as if the issue already was decided, that he would be president. It was Mary Ayer‟s enthusiasm over the “foreign” student that impressed the incident on Hulton‟s memory. Hulton had a 39 year career with the postal service and has filed a sworn affidavit to Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. XIV.
ARGUMENT ON APPEAL TO U.S. SUPREME COURT QUESTION 3 Does evidence provided to the Court by Petitioner of a Sheriff Law
Enforcement Report constituting probable cause of fraud and forgery of Candidate Barack Obama‟s identity papers for qualification of the Office of President casting reasonable doubt on candidate‟s qualifications, if avoided by the Court, not constitute reprisal grounds for the release and pardon of all convicted of similar crimes for equal Justice under the law? a. The excused criminal conduct for Barack Obama, in defrauding the American
people of their vote and of their contributions by coercively representing himself to be qualified as a natural born citizen when he is not, by the Court avoiding an issue, which clearly has been defined for it by the Constitution and Congress, that precedent should apply to the excused conviction of all others heretofore convicted by any Court under the U.S. Supreme Court for any and all related criminal acts,
setting new precedent for the Court‟s altered defense of the Constitution and thereby representing equality under the law.
b. Cody Robert Judy prays for the Court to grant this Petition for Writ of Certiorari or
let the denial stand for those convicted to be set free by Justice of the Court.
SUMMARY OF THE PETITION OF WRIT OF CERTIORI
The Petitioner has shown the Court the lower court(s) in multiple states are
particularly prone to error such that an exercise of the Court‟s “supervisory authority” is called for in the matter of upholding the natural born citizen qualification demand for the Office of the President. The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted and
an injunction made prohibiting any other State from placing Barack Obama‟s name on a State Ballot thereby preserving the integrity of the qualifications for the Office of the President as well as the Democratic Party votes in Primaries. Respectfully signed and submitted this ____ day of April, 2012 _____________________ Cody Robert Judy pro se petitioner 3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2 Ogden, UT 8440 Counsel for Respondent Barack Obama
Michael Jablonski 260 Brighton Road NE Atlanta, GA. 30309-1523 email@example.com Counsel for Respondent Brian Kemp Secretary of State Brian Kemp Georgia Secretary of State‟s Office –Executive Office 214 State Capital Atlanta GA. 30334- firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com
DECLARATION of MAILING CERTIFICATE AFFADAVIT
Notarized affidavit or declaration in compliance with 28 U. S. C. § 1746, reciting the facts and circumstances of service in accordance with U.S. Supreme Crt. Rule 29 (c) I do hereby declare under penalty of law that I mailed, via 1st class U.S. Mail and Email, a true and correct copy of the forgoing 1. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Postage pre-paid, to the RESPONDENT(s), by and through Counsel(s) of Record at: Attorney for RESPONDENT: Esquire Mr. Michael Jablonski for Barack Obama and CamAnh Le Esq. &Vincent Robert Russo counsel(s) for secretary of State Brian Kemp, at: 1-Michael Jablonski 260 Brighton Road NE Atlanta, GA. 30309-1523 firstname.lastname@example.org 2-Secretary of State Brian Kemp Georgia Secretary of State‟s Office –Executive Office 214 State Capital Atlanta GA. 30334- email@example.com , firstname.lastname@example.org 3- Solicitor General of the United States at, Room 5614, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W., Washington, DC 20530-0001 4- Sam Olens-Office of the Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, Ga 30334. Phone: (404) 656-3300 Email: email@example.com 5- Cody Robert Judy- 3031 Ogden Avenue, Suite #2, Ogden, UT. 84403 firstname.lastname@example.org 6-U.S. Supreme Court 1First Street N.E. Washington D.C. 20543 ts email@example.com
On this the ____ Day of ________________, 2012. Signature of Mailer __/s/__Cody Robert Judy__________________________ NOTARY SEAL SIGNITURE: ________________________
Supreme Court of the United States
———— Cody Robert Judy,
v. Barrack Obama Brian Kemp
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
1-9 10-11 11-12 11-12 12-14 14-16 17 EXHIBIT LAST PAGE
1- OPINIONS ORDERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH JUDGEMENTS SOUGHT A-Z 2U.S.CONSTITUTION REFERENCE NUMERICAL ORDER
3- U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE REFERENCES A-Z 4- FEDERAL AND STATE STATUE RULES A-Z 5- OTHER COURT CASE REFERENCES A-Z 6- OTHER MATERIAL NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE CASE 7- NOTICE OF APPEAL 8- BARRACK OBAMA‟S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE
APPENDIX |1 XVIII. APPENDIX
Part 1. OPINIONS, ORDERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH JUDGEMENT SOUGHT A-Z.
1Oral Hearing-New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission- Taitz v. Gardner Nov. 18th ,2011 (Pg.1) Commission voted to deny Petitioner(s) request to remove Barack Obama from the Ballot by a unanimous decision. The Ballot Law Commission were all Democratic Party member representatives. 2Pending - New Hampshire Supreme Court Case- Taitz et. al., v. (Cook) Gardner; Case No. No.: 2011-0E80- decision is pending or unrendered under rule 7-A.(Pg.1) Appeal is pending citing all the facts of the case presented and particular aspects of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission that violated Legislative Law to have a fair number of members representing both major political parties representing as the Commission; and bylaws of the Commission that prohibited members from making political contributions to the „Candidate‟ in question Barack Obama.
3Written Opinion and Order- Georgia Administrative Court; Farrar v. Obama; Case No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI; handed down Feb. 3rd, 2012. (pg. 2,5,7,10)
a. DECISION' Plaintiffs allege that Defendant President Barack Obama does not meet Georgia's eligibility requirements for candidacy in Georgia's 2012 presidential primary election. Georgia law mandates that candidates meet constitutional and statutory requirements for office that they seek. O.C.G.A. § 21-25(a). Mr. Obama is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Georgia Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the Office of the President of the United States. Id. The United States Constitution requires that a President be a "natural born [c]itizen." U.S. Const. art.II, § 1, cl. 5.
b. As required by Georgia Law, Secretary of State Brian Kemp referred Plaintiffs' challenges to this Court
for a hearing. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b). A hearing was held on January 26, 2012. The record closed on February 1, 2012. Plaintiffs Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren, and Roth and their counsel Orly Taitz, Plaintiffs Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell and their counsel J. Mark Hatfield, and Plaintiff David P. Welden and his counsel Van R. Trion, all appeared and answered the call of the case. However, neither Defendant nor his counsel, Michael Jablonski, appeared or answered. Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.30(1) and (5). Nonetheless, despite the
i. 1 This Decision has been consolidated to include the four challenges to President Obama's candidacy filed by Plaintiffs David Farrar, et al., David P. Welden, Carl Swensson, and Kevin Richard Powell. Section I of this Decision applies only to the case presented by Ms. Taitz on behalf of Mr. Farrar and his coplaintiffs, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, and Laurie Roth, and does not
APPENDIX Page 1
pertain, in any way, to the cases of Mr. Welden, Mr. Swensson, and Mr. Powell. Section II applies to all Plaintiffs. c. Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request. By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing. d. I. Evidentiary Arguments of Plaintiffs Farrar, et al. Plaintiffs Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren, and Roth contend that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen. To support this contention, Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Obama maintains a fraudulently obtained social security number, a Hawaiian birth certificate that is a computer-generated forgery, and that he does not otherwise possess valid U.S. identification papers. Further, Plaintiffs submit that Mr. Obama has previously held Indonesian citizenship, and he did not use his legal name on his notice of candidacy,which is either Barry Soetoro or Barack Obama Soebarkah. (Pl.s' Am. Compl. 3.) At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of eight witnesses 2 and seven exhibits in support of their position. (Exs. P-1 through P-7.) When considering the testimony and exhibits, this Court applies the same rules of evidence that apply to civil nonjury cases in superior court. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(1)—(9). The weight to be given to any evidence shall be determined by the Court based upon its reliability and probative value. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 6161-2-.18(10). The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations. Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence). For example, two of Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that Mr. Obama's birth certificate was forged,
2 Originally, Ms. Taitz indicated to the Court that she would offer the testimony of seven i. witnesses. However, during her closing argument, Ms. Taitz requested to testify. Ms. Taitz was sworn and began her testimony, but shortly thereafter, the Court requested that Ms. Tatiz stepdown and submit any further testimony in writing. 3 The credibility of witnesses is within the sole discretion of the trier of fact. In non-jury cases that discretion lies with the judge. See Mustang Transp., Inc. v. W. W. Lowe & Sons, Inc., 123 Ga. App. 350, 352 (1971).
but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or fraud investigations in general. Accordingly, the Court cannot make an
objective threshold determination of these witnesses' testimony without adequate knowledge of their qualifications. See Knudsen v. Duffee-Freeman, Inc., 95 Ga. App. 872 (1957) (for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his or her qualifications as such must be first proved). None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' claims are not persuasive. eII. Application of the "Natural Born Citizen" Requirement Plaintiffs allege that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and, therefore, is not eligible to run in Georgia's presidential primary election. As indicated supra, the United States Constitution states that "[n]o person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible for the Office of the President . . . ' 4 U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. For the purpose of this section's analysis, the following facts are considered: 1) Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2) Mr. Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth; and 3) Mr. Obama's father was never a United States citizen. Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States. The Court does not agree. In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals ("Indiana Court") addressed facts and issues similar to those before this Court. Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In Arkeny, the plaintiffs sought to prevent certification of Mr. Obama as an eligible candidate for president because he is not a natural born citizen. Id. at 681. The plaintiffs argued, as the Plaintiffs argue before this Court, that "there's a very clear distinction between a 'citizen of the United States' and a 'natural born Citizen,' and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance." Id. at 685. The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States
The definition of this clause has been the source of much debate. See, e.g., Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968); Jill A. Pryor, Note, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988); Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349 (2000); William T. Han, Beyond
Presidential Eligibility: The Natural Born Citizen Clause as a Source of Birthright Citizenship, 58 Drake L. Rev. 457 (2010).
are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Id. at 688. This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive. The Indiana Court began its analysis by attempting to ascertain the definition of "natural born citizen" because the Constitution does not define the term. Id. at 685APPENDIX Page 3
86; See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875) ("The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that"); see also United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (noting that the only mention of the term "natural born citizen" in the Constitution is in Article II, and the term is not defined in the Constitution). The Indiana Court first explained that the U.S. Supreme Court has read the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II (natural born citizen provision) in tandem and held that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." Id. at 685 (citing Minor, 88 U.S. at 167); See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ."). In Minor, the Court observed that: At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Id. at 167-68. Plaintiffs ask this Court to read the Supreme Court's decision in Minor as defining natural born citizens as only "children born in a country of
parents who were its citizens." 88 U.S. at 167. However, the Indiana Court explains that Minor did not define the term natural born citizen. In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the Minor Court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural born, and this Court agrees. The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen. Next, the Indiana Court looked to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" in the Fourteenth Amendment and "natural born citizen of the United States" in Article II to determine whether a child born in the United States to parents who, at the time of the child's birth, were subjects of China "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . ." Id. at 686 (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653). The Indiana Court determined that the two provisions "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution." Id. (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 654). The Indiana Court agreed that "[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." Id. (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655) (internal citation omitted). The Wong Kim Ark Court extensively examined the common law of England in its decision and concluded that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to alien
APPENDIX Page 4
parents, became a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth. Ark, 169 U.S. at 705.
The Wong Kim Ark Court explained: The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual . . . and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King. 169 U.S. at 655. It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
Id. at 658. Further:
Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.
Id. at 660 (quoting Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99,
164 (1830) (Story, J., concurring)). And: The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
Id. at 662 (quoting Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 576 (1856) (Curtis,
J., dissenting)). Finally:
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
Id. at 662-63 (quoting United States v. Rhodes, (1866) (Mr. Justice Swayne)).
Relying on the language of the Constitution and the historical reviews and analyses of Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the Indiana Court concluded that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States  natural-born citizens." 916 N.E.2d at 688. The Indiana Court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth.6 For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, CONCLUSION President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b). SO ORDERED, February 3rd, 2012. /s/ Michael M. Malihi
This Court recognizes that the Wong Kim Ark case was not deciding the meaning of "natural born citizen" for the purposes of determining presidential qualifications; however, this Court finds the Indiana Court's analysis and reliance on these cases to be persuasive.
4Written Opinion and Order-Fulton County GA. Superior Court; Farrar v. Obama ; Case # 2012-CV-211398-Wright ;handed down March 2nd,2012 and a subsequent Order on reconsideration on March 15th,2012 (Pg 2,5,7,10) a. Citation A Superior Court Order Granting Respondent‟s Motion To Dismiss. The above captioned actions are before the Court on the Petition(s) for Judicial Review of Petitioners David Farrar, (Cody Robert Judy)et al., Carl Swenson, Kevin Richard Powell, and David P. Welden which were filed in this Court on Feb.13th,2012 and Feb. 15th,2012, respectively. Although initially assigned to four (4) different Superior Court Judges, the matters were transferred to the Honorable Chief Judge Cynthia D. Wright, to whom the first filed case was assigned (Farrar,
et al. v. Obama et al., Civil Action File No. 2012CV211398, because each is an appeal of the same decision issued on Feb. 3rd,2012 by Administrative Law Judge Michael M. Malihi in the Office of State Administrative Hearings and thereafter adopted by the Secretary of State. Presently, before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss of Respondent Barack Obama, filed in each of the above-referenced actions on February 27th,2012. The Motion(s) to Dismiss are identical in form and substance and will, therefore, be addressed by the Court in one consolidated Order to be applied in each case. Now, having considered the Motion(s) to Dismiss, the other pleadings of record, and applicable Georgia law, the Court finds as follows: Petitioners filed their Appeal/Petition for Judicial Review of the Secretary of State‟s decision in this Court pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(e), which provides as follows: The elector filing the challenge or the candidate challenged shall have a 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. The filing of the petition shall not itself stay the decision of the Secretary of State; however, the reviewing court may order a stay upon appropriate terms for good cause shown. As soon as possible after service of the petition, the Secretary of State shall transmit the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the pleadings under review to the reviewing court. The review shall be conducted by the court without jury and shall be confined to the record. Petitioners allege that Respondent Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen”1 and, thus, is not qualified for candidacy in Georgia‟s 2012 Presidential Primary. Despite its application in the court below, this Court does not believe that O.C.G.A. §21-2-5 applies in this case because the challenge at issue involves the Presidential Preference Primary, which by its terms, is an opportunity for electors “to express their preference for one person to be a candidate for nomination.” O.C.G.A § 21-2191. The Presidential Preference Primary apportions delegates, but neither elects nor nominates candidates for the Presidency. Therefore, because Respondent Barack Obama is not yet a “candidate” for the Presidential election in question and because the Presidential Preference Primary is not an “election” within the meaning of O.C. G.A. § 21-2-1, et seq., O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 does not apply. See O.C.G.A § 21-22(5) and 21-2-5.
Petitioners claim is based , in part, on a contention that at the time of his birth, Respondent‟s father was not a citizen of the United States.
Moreover, it is well established in Georgia as elsewhere in the United States that voters vote on “presidential electors,” rather than voting directly for a candidate, when voting for the Office of President of the United States. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-172. The political parties‟ candidates for President are determined by convention of the political party. See O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-191 to 21-2-200. In the case of a democratic candidate for President, the Democratic Party of Georgia has the sole discretion to determine the qualification of potential candidates and the name(s) to be included on its Presidential Preference Primary ballot. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193; see Duke v. Cleland, 954.F.2d 1523 (11th Cir.1992); Duke v. Cleland,884 F. Supp.511,515-16 (N.D. Ga. 1995).
The Secretary of State is prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Georgia statutory law from infringing on the associational rights of the Democratic Party of Georgia and is limited in its authority to examining presidential electors. O.C.G.A. § § 21-2-172 to 21-2-200; Duke v. Cleland,884 F. Supp. At 515-16 (N.D. Ga. 1995). Even if the Secretary of State believes that a challenger‟s claims are valid, the Secretary of State may not interfere with a political party‟s internal decision-making. Id. Based upon Georgia law and governing precedent, the Court finds it has no authority to exercise jurisdiction over the Democratic Party of Georgia‟s selection of the name(s) to be included in the Presidential Preference Primary or to examine the qualifications of those individuals. Therefore, these actions should be DISMISSED in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12(b). Additionally, even if the Court had determined that O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 applied to these matters and provided the Court with appellate jurisdiction over same, the Court finds that Petitioners have failed entirely to perfect personal service upon Respondent(s) as required by O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5 (e) and O.C.G.A §9-11-4. See Bible v. Bible, 259 Ga. 418,418 (1989). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent Barack Obama‟s Motion(s) to Dismiss in the above matters are GRANTED, and the above actions are hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED this the 2nd day of March,2012. /s/Chief Judge CYNTHIA D. WRIGHT Fulton County Superior Court Atlanta Judicial Circuit b. Superior Court Order on Reconsideration on March 15th,2012
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY EXPARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The above-captioned action is before the Court on the Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiffs Cody Robert Judy and David Farrar, Pro Se (“Plaintiffs”),seeking reconsideration of the Final Order entered by the Court on March 2nd, 2012. Now, having considered Plaintiffs‟ Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration, as well as the other pleadings of record in this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiffs Cody Robert Judy and David Farrar is DENIED. SO ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2012 Judge CYNTHIA D. WRIGHT Chief Judge Fulton County Superior Court Atlanta Judicial Circuit (pg. 2,5,7,10) 5Pending on pro hac vice motion for leave: GA. State Supreme Court Farrar v. Obama in which attorney Orly Taitz Esq. refused to include petitioner Cody Robert Judy who had written all the pleadings in the Superior Court after Mrs. Taitz had been denied pro hac vice; that included what he felt were inappropriate public remarks she made during the case he was still filing pleadings in that had to do with the Judge being shot in a former relationship. Farrar concurred with Judy in the Emergency Motion for Reconsideration but is persuaded to leave Judy in further appeal due to Mrs. Taitz Esq paying for the Appeal(s) and representing pro bono in Farrar‟s indigent status. a. It should also be noted here that an Appeal to the GA. State Supreme Court for a Stay was denied in Swensson v. Obama who was a part of the original Administrative Court Malihi Order as well as March 2nd ,2012 denial of Superior Court Wright‟s Order granting Obama‟s Motion to Dismiss.
A P P E N D I X | 10
Part 2. CONSTITUTION REFERENCE NUMERICAL ORDER
6U.S.C. Article I. Section.2.,Clause 2: [ 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,]. Section.3,Clause 4:[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,]. Section.8. Clause 1: [ The Congress shall have Power To] Section.10: [ to define and punish][Offenses against the Law of Nations;] (Pg5,17,30 ). 7U.S.C. Article II, Section. 1., Clause 5 [ No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;] (Pg. 4,5,7,15,25,27,30,31) 8U.S.C. Article IV. Sect.2. Clause 2: [ A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the Executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.] Sect. 4. [The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against]… [domestic Violence.] (Pg. 25 ) 9U.S.C. Art. V. [The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,](Pg. 31) 10U.S.C. Article VI. Clause 2: [This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, and Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.] Clause 3:[The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the Several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;](Pg. 14,16 ) 11U.S.C. Amendment XII. [The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President][ or other constitutional disability of the President--][* Superseded by Sect.3 of the Twentieth Amendment].(Pg. 24)
A P P E N D I X | 11
12U.S.C. Amendment XIV. Sect 1. [All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State][deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws.]. Section.3. [ No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection, or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.](Pg. 9,26,27,34,35 ) 13U.S.C. Amendment XV. Section 1. [The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.] U.S.C. Amendment XIX.[sex]. (Pg. 20 ) 14U.S.C. Amendment XX. Section 1.[ The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January,][and the terms of their successors shall then begin.] Section 3. [ and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,]. (Pg. 25 )
Part 3. U.S. SUPREME CRT CASE REFERENCE A-Z 151617181920Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) (Pg.32) (Pg. 4,25,27,28 )
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) 307 U.S. 325, 350 (Pg. 33 ) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) (Pg. 31 ) (Pg.31)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)(Pg.27,32) Part 4. FEDERAL & STATE STATUTES AND RULES
A P P E N D I X | 12 2122232425262728293031323334U.S. Supreme Court Rules 10 (c)(Pg.2,7) U.S. Supreme Court Rule 11 (Pg.2,6,7) U.S. Supreme Court Rule 13 (1) (Pg.7) U.S. Supreme Court 14.1(b) (iii)
U.S. Supreme Court 14.1(e)(v) (Pg. 8) U.S. Supreme Court Rule 22.1 (Pg.7) U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.4 (b)(c) (Pg.8) 28 U.S.C. §2101(e). (Pg 2.) 28 U. S. C. § 2403(a) (Pg.8) 28 U. S. C. § 2403(b) (Pg.8) 28 U. S. C. § 451 (Pg. 8) 28 U. S. C. § 2403(b) (pg.8) 28 U. S. C. § 1746 (Pg.45,46) O.C.G.A. § 21-2-6 stating “any voter eligible to vote for such candidate may
challenge the qualifications of a candidate. (Pg. iii) 35(Pg.14) 36Ga. Code Ann. § 2l-2-132(e)(4) (1998) (Candidate must swear eligible to run) (Pg.19) Part 5. OTHER COURT CASE REFERENCE A-Z O.C.G.A. section 21-2-5 [timely ballot candidate challenge to Secretary of State
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000,
(supporting Perkins v. Elg) (Pg.39)
APPENDIX Page 12
A P P E N D I X | 13 38-
Anderson v. Celebrezze (quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. at 803 n.30) ( 2 party
disadvantaged independent candidates) (Pg.24) 39-
Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) Ruling „natural born citizen‟
same as „citizen‟ 14th Amendment. (Pg.15,31) 40Barnett v. Obama N o . 0 9 - 5 6 8 2 7 D . C . N o . 8 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 0 8 2 - D O C -
A N O P I N I O N ( Pg.iii) 41Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (upholding right of Boy Scouts to
exclude gay scoutmaster); (Pg.22 ) 42-
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 286 U.S. 49, 61 (1932) (two acts
affect to both) (Pg.15 ) 4344Georgia Administrative Hearing- Judge Michael Malihi Feb.3rd,2012 (Pg.1) Haynes v. Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA. 2000) (Established Candidate burden of proof
of eligibility) (Pg.15) 4546-
Henderson‟s Tobacco, 78 U.S. 652 657 (1870) (two acts affect to both) (Pg.15)
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) (pg.22). 47Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709,710 (1974) (undue burdens unjustified to
candidates right to vote heavily burdened only 2 candidates) (Pg. 21) 48-
Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1805) Constitutional Construction prohibited
(Pg.15 ) 49-
Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008) (not authorized to change
meaning) (Pg.27) 50-
Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974) (two acts affects to both) (Pg.15)
A P P E N D I X | 14 51N.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); ( P g . 2 2 ) 52Bd. of Dir. of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537 (1987) (upholding
public accommodations law that prohibited gender discrimination) (Pg.22). 53NAACP v. Alabama ex rei. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) upholding right of
NAACP to keep membership lists private. (pg 22) 54New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission- Nov. 18th,2011(Pg.1) Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (same) (Pg. 22) Rockefeller ll, 917 F. Supp. at 164. & /d..(Against State Party favored nominee)
(Pg.20) 57Superior Court of Fulton County ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY EXPARTE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION entered on Record March 15th,2012. (Pg. 2,5,7,10) 58Superior Court of Fulton County ORDER Granting Respondent Barack Obama‟s
MOTION TO DISMISS entered on Record March 2nd,2012 (Pg. 2,5,7,10 ) 59Supreme Court State Of New Hampshire- Petition For Review Of An Unlawful And Unreasonable Ruling By An Administrative Agency Case No.: 2011-0E80 (Pg.) 60Tashjian, 479 U.S. at 211; /d. at 212;/d. at 216-17, 225 (freedom of association with
open primary) (Pg.21 ) 6115) 6263United States v. Tynen, 78 U.S. 88 (1870); (two acts affect to both) (Pg. 15) Wood v. United States, 41 U.S. 342, 362-63 (1842) (two acts affect to both) (Pg.15 ) Part 6 OTHER MATERIAL NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND CASE United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939) (two acts affect to both ) (Pg.
Black‟s Law Dictionary 737 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 7th ed., West 1999) (defining
precedent) (Black‟s Law Dictionary at 465, distinguishing “dictum gratis”). (Pg.28,29)
APPENDIX Page 14
A P P E N D I X | 15
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Jack Maskell Memo referring Minor case
as precedent for „foreign parents‟ –Citizens- as „natural born citizen‟ (Pg.29)
Declaration of Mailing (Following pg. 38 Pg.1)
Democratic Georgia Primary Result link Obama 100%
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/GA-D (Pg.6) http://www.sos.ga.gov/pressrel/elections/20120314Secretary%20of%20State%20Kem p%20Certifies%20Presidential%20Preference%20Primary%20Results.htm (Pg.6) 68Hulton Affidavit- a 39 year career with the postal service and has filed a
sworn affidavit to Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio “ Obama referred to as “foreign student” who was “going to be President”. (Pg.37) 69Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution pg. 2791 (referenced 2 qualifications for natural born citizen) (Pg.35) (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862) (of parents owing allegiance to no
other sovereignty, are natural born citizens) (Pg.36) (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess.,
1291 (1866) (natural born citizen-born in the U.S. to citizen parents not owing any foreign allegiance.)(Pg.36). 70Secretary of State Certification of GA. Preferential Primary Link:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/GA-D (Pg 6) 7172Service of Process Record Obama & GA. Sec. Of State (Pg.6) Sheriff Joe Arpaio, AZ. Maricopa County, 6month 2200 hour Cold Case Posse
Investigation of Obama long form birth certificate and Draft Registration released March 1st ,2012. Link to the Cold Case Posse results on March 1st with the 7 short videos report.
APPENDIX Page 15
A P P E N D I X | 16
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes-posse-probable-cause-obama-certificate-afraud/ …………………. (Pg.ii,10,13,22,33,37)
The Lion‟s Den Show with Cody Robert Judy in a 2 part series on June 5th, 2011 found on YouTube Channel CODE4PRES entitled “Dumb and Dumber”, “Dumb & Dumber the CRS and Congress make Stupid” 5 Eligibility checks for President and CRS Memo false precedent to Congress) Link 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJwFnVmLor8 …. (Pg.29) Link 2: http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2011/06/crs-memorandum-dumbs-down-congress-on.html ……………………………………………………………… (Pg.29)
73citizen) 747576U.S. Senate non-binding Resolution 511 (declared John McCain a natural born …………………………………………………………….(Pg. 35) John Jay‟s letter to George Washington dated 25 July 1787 (Pg.34) Affidavit(s) P1 through P10) (Pg.7,8,9,10) . Timothy Lee Adams March 21st Affidavit of a Senior Elections Clerk Honolulu, Hawaii
( Obama had no long form birth certificate common knowledge among employees) (Pg.37) 7778NOTICE OF APPEAL dated March 23rd,2012 (Pg.2,7, Appendix 17) Judy v. McCain U.S. District Nevada Civil No. 2:08-cv-01162 (Reverse effect of natural born
citizen having children outside U.S. or with foreign parent) (Pg.35) 79Obama released long form birth certificate White House April 27 th,2011. (last page exhibit) Federal Elections Commission (F.E.C.) (Pg.ii, 12,16,22
A P P E N D I X | 17 PART 7 APPENDIX Notice of Appeal CODY ROBERT JUDY Pro Se 3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite 2 Ogden, UT. 84403 (801)497-6655 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Web Site: www.codyjudy.us 2
___________________________________________________________________ FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF GEORGIA __________________________________________________________
CODY ROBERT JUDY, NOTICE OF APPEAL
Petitioner, v. BARACK OBAMA, SECRETARY OF STATE BRIAN KEMP Respondent(s). Case # 2012-CV-211398 Judge: Cynthia D. Wright
___________________________________________________________ COMES NOW, Petitioner, CODY ROBERT JUDY pro se, and submits respectfully to the Fulton County Superior Court this NOTICE OF APPEAL to The United States Supreme Court of the Order of the Court dated March 2nd,2012, and March 15th, 2012: Pursuant Rule 11 Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals
Before Judgment A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United
States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in the U.S. Supreme Court pursuant 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e). Submitted and Signed this 23rd Day of March,
2012. /s/ Cody Robert Judy_________________________
APPENDIX Page 17
A P P E N D I X | 18
CODY ROBERT JUDY PETITIONER PRO SE 3031 Ogden Ave. Suite #2 Ogden Ave Ogden UT. 84403 801-497-6655 email@example.com www.codyjudy.us
WORD COUNT NOTICE AFFADAVIT
Under penalty of perjury and 28 U. S. C. § 1746 I hereby declare that the word count in
my writ of certiorari submitted this ___ day of April, 2012 is within compliance at 38 PAGES.
______________________ Signature. CODY ROBERT JUDY