Judy v. Obama SCOTUS Motion & Order - Why did Mitt Romney become a Birther?

7/31/2019 Judy v. Obama SCOTUS Motion & Order - Why did Mitt Romney become a Birther?

1/7

CODY ROBERT JUDY

3031 So. Ogden Ave.

Suite #2

Ogden UT. 84401

801-497-6655

____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

_____________________________________________________________________

EXPARTE SUA SPONTE MOTION FOR

CODY ROBERT JUDY, WAIVER OF TIME RESTRAINT BY

Petitioner, PETITIONER, AND SCHEDULE ORDER

v. OF PROCEEDING BY THE COURT

BARACK OBAMA et.al., Case No. ________________

Respondent. Judge: _____________________

___________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW the Petitioner, CODY ROBERT JUDY, pro se, and respectfully submits this

EXPARTE SUA SPONTE MOTION FOR WAIVER OF TIME RESTRAINT BY

PETITIONER, AND SCHEDULE ORDER OF PROCEEDING BY THE COURT and says:

I, Cody Robert Judy, do hereby waive any time restraint assumed by the Court for immediate and

affective adjudication of this proceeding and state the following extraordinary circumstances due

to the Democratic National Convention being held Sept. 5th

, 2012 the following facts and

argument, and have proposed with accompanying and attached ORDER, that a fair

representation of both sides can be assumed with the remaining time.


2/7

Petitioner has made every effort possible to obtain the judgment of the Court with the submission

of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari that was presented to the Clerks Office around April 4th,

2012 with an appeal from the New Hampshire Supreme Court decision, ( also included as part of

this current Petition for Writ of Certiorari), and even attempted an Original Jurisdiction pleading

but was denied a case number by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

Petitioner was denied access to the Court and denied a case number upon his submission and

some six other re-submissions. (See the Court record of expenses for mailings to the petitioner

for the record.) Petitioner also argued with the Clerk that due to the timing of the elections a

lower Court might constitute the Court of last resort before entering the U.S. Supreme Court due

to election timing as is also included now in the Jurisdiction Statement on the Writ of Certiorari.

See: 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.

Petitioner argues that his case should have been heard, and could have been heard in the

last session of the Supreme Court and that due to a Court caused deflection of his submission has

effectively been extremely burdened with the necessity of timing because of the Court Clerks

assertion that the New Hampshire Supreme Court was not a qualifying court for review, Rule 11

didnt apply and should not be included as part of a jurisdiction statement, and original

jurisdiction was reserved for States.

Petition was further burdened finally exhausted to attempt, with lighting speed, getting a

Georgia Supreme Court decision which he did and resubmitted a Writ of Certiorari received by

the Court Clerks office June 28th

,2012. Again, it was returned to Petitioner with the same


3/7

excuses used to return the April 4th

,2012 Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Petitioner re-submitted

and with big BLACK MARKERS AND HIGHLIGHTERS pointed out the Georgia Supreme

Court Case number. It was again sent back to Petitioner stating that the lower court decisions

needed to be included in the Appendix, which petitioner had typed out in the Appendix already

just the same way as other Petitions for Writ of Certioraris are printed out , but went ahead and

resubmitted inserting after the typed version the stamped copies and also re-served the revised

Petition to respondents again.

The point is Petitioner is not negligent in the pursuit of the Courts Jurisdiction and for all

the reasons the Clerks sent back the petition, has either been severely discriminated against as a

pro se litigant, or, the Clerks office has been effectively used as a stalling tactic, working as an

aid to the Respondent, in the understanding the delay Petitioner just outlined contributes to the

denial of justice in a timely proceeding before the Democratic National Convention Sept.

5th,2012.

With the Democratic National Convention scheduled for Sept 5th

2012, of which

Petitioner and Respondent are scheduled to compete for the nomination of said parties delegates

for the Office of President, the following is herein proposed and so ordered that a decision from

the Court can be managed by the date of August 22nd,2012, or in the event that the Supreme

Court cannot convene that an appropriate delegation of the Courts choice in the Court of

Appeals can convene to hear the case.

The extraordinary circumstances or reason(s) for this are in consideration of attending

delegates to the Convention can , so at the very least they can manage selection of a qualified


4/7

candidate for the Office of President pursuant the qualification demands of the Constitution, and

still have 2 weeks to prepare prior for the National Convention.

The affective position of this Motion and ORDER is actually in protection of the Democratic

Party Nominee of which it is easily assumed more than half of all Americans have a stake in for

election of the next President of the United States.

Assuming for instance, the Court does not hear this action, or adopt the Petitioners ORDER,

the result could substantially affect the election process in the following scenario. Mitt Romney

becomes the nominee for the Republican Party, and once he has the nomination, with affective

and competitive standing, (just like Petition has right now within the Democratic Party), decides

because he is down in the polls to challenge Barack Obamas eligibility because he is not

qualified as a natural born citizen, and wins affectively eliminating the entire Democratic Party

chances in the election because its too late to reorganize priorthe November 6th 2012 election.

If the Court somehow beliefs or is certain Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee would

not do such a thing basically all of the lower Courts decisions that represent dismissals because

of Standing are moot, because a parties nominee has affective standing to challenge any other

Parties Candidate for eligibility. If for instance Barack Obama won the Democratic Party

nomination and went on to win the general election but Mitt Romney had filed a eligibility

complaint to this Court having lost in a very close call, Mitt Romney could Constitutionally

remove Barack Obama from his general election win, and that could cause a real chaos in the

Nation. Hence it is a much better scenario for the Court to hear this challenge now, and

procedurally adopt this Motion and grant the ORDER attached.

Signed and Submitted this ___ day of July, 2012. Cody Robert Judy pro se ________________


5/7

CODY ROBERT JUDY

3031 So. Ogden Ave.

Suite #2

Ogden UT. 84401

801-497-6655

- - - - - - - -

___________________________________________________________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

_____________________________________________________________________

CODY ROBERT JUDY, WAIVER OF TIME RESTRAINT BY

Petitioner, PETITIONER, AND SCHEDULE ORDER

v. OF PROCEEDING BY THE COURT

BARACK OBAMA et.al., Case No. ________________

Respondent. Judge: _____________________

___________________________________________________________________________

With the Democratic National Convention scheduled for Sept 5th

2012, of which Petitioner and

Respondent are scheduled to compete for the nomination of said parties delegates for the Office

of President, the following is herein proposed and so ordered that a decision from the Court can

be managed by the date of August 22nd,2012. Altered by the Court: ________________

The extraordinary circumstances or reason(s) for this are in consideration of attending delegates

to the Convention can , so at the very least they can manage selection of a qualified candidate for

the Office of President pursuant the qualification demands of the Constitution, and still have 2

weeks / Altered by the court: ______________ / to prepare prior for the National Convention.


6/7

1- Mr. Judy, Petitioner pro se, waives any right of time prescription and the followingproposal has herein been adopted and/ or altered by order of the Court.

2-Response BRIEF to Petition for Writ of Certiorari due by July 26 th,2012 giving Counsel at

least 7 days after receiving it by 1st

class mail, postage pre-paid. Reponses to all parties shall be

emailed to the respective email addresses noticed in the Declaration of Mailing furnished in the

Original Petition. Altered by the Court: _________________________________

3-Reply to Response Brief for Petitioner/and or/Agent practicing for the Court on behalf of

Petitioner Due August 2nd

, 2012 giving 7 days from Respondents Brief due date of July

26th

,2012. Altered by the Court: _______________________________________

4- Oral argument is herein scheduled for August 13th

-16th

, 2012 giving the Court and parties

to the action 10 days to pre-pare for trial.

Altered by the Court: _____________________________________________

5- Decision by the Court shall be approximated by August 22nd

, 2012 giving the Court 6 days

to render and write an opinion.

Altered by the Court: _____________________________________________

The proceeding proposal has been adopted and is now so ORDER BY THE COURT.

BY THE COURT:

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

JUSTICE(S):


7/7

DECLARATION OF MAILING

XI. 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 certify that I mailed, via 1st

class U.S. Mail and Email, a true andcorrect copy of the forgoing

1-EXPARTE SUA SPONTEWAIVER OF TIME RESTRAINT BY PETITIONER, AND

SCHEDULED ORDER OF PROCEEDING OF THE COURT

2-WAIVER OF TIME RESTRAINT BY PETITIONER, AND SCHEDULED ORDER

OF PROCEEDING OF THE COURT

Postage pre-paid, to the RESPONDENT(s), by and through Counsel(s) of Record at: Attorneyfor RESPONDENT: Esquire Mr. Michael Jablonski for Barack Obama and Cam-Anh 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 [email protected]

2-Secretary of State Brian Kemp Georgia Secretary of States Office Executive Office 214 State CapitalAtlanta GA. 30334- [email protected] , [email protected]

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 protected]

5- Cody Robert Judy- 3031 Ogden Avenue, Suite #2, Ogden, UT. 84403 [email protected]

6-U.S. Supreme Court 1First Street N.E. Washington D.C. 20543 ts [email protected]

On this the 14th Day of July, 2012.

Signature of Mailer __/s/__Cody Robert Judy__________________________
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

Judy v. Obama SCOTUS Motion & Order - Why did Mitt Romney become a Birther?