____________

No.

____________

IN THE

Supreme Court of Georgia ————

Cody Robert Judy, Petitioner,

v.

Barrack Obama Brian Kemp

Respondent(s)

————

Discretionary Application for Review /or/ Certification of Federal Question of Law

From the Superior Court of Georgia for the County of Fulton, Docket number 2012CV211398, reviewing the decision of the Georgia Office of State

Administrative Hearings Docket number 1215136-60

———

CODY ROBERT JUDYPro se Petitioner3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite 2 Ogden, UT. 84403www.codyjudy.us (801)497-6655codyjudy@hotmail.com

MICHAEL JABLONSKI Counsel of Record for BARACK OBAMA 260 Brighton Road NE Atlanta, GA. 30309-1523 404- 290-2977 michael.jablonski@comcast.net

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 cale@sos.ga.gov , vrusso@sos.ga.gov

I. QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT MIGHT BE DECIDED:

1- 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?

2- 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, 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?

ii

3- Question - 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?

II. INTRODUCTION

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 1Federal 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 in ballot

inclusion, campaign expenditures, and contributions made to an illegal

candidate which might have otherwise been given to his campaign. Mr.

iii

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.

________________________________

1(Even 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."

III. PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

The parties here and in the proceeding in the Georgia Supreme Court

are listed.

Petitioner here and appellant below are:

Mr. Cody Robert Judy

Respondent(s) here and appellee below

Mr. Barack Obama

iv

Mr. Brian Kemp GA. Secretary of State

IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREAMBLES

CAPTION OF THE CASE……………………………………………………………… Pg. i

I. QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT MIGHT BE DECIDED..……………………. Pg. ii

II. INTRODUCTION ..….….……………………………………………………… Pg. iii

III. PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING …………………………………………….. Pg. iv

IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS .…..…………………………………………………… Pg. v

V. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………. Pg. vi-

VI. STATUTES ………………………………………………………………… Pg. vii-viii

BODY

VII. CITATIONS OF OFFICIAL & UNOFFICIAL ORDERS AND OPINION. Pg. 1-2

v

VIII. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT……………..………………………….… Pg. 2

VIV. STATUTORY PROVISIONS .……...……………………………………… Pg. 3

X. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..…….………………………………………… Pg. 3-7

XI. PETITIONER’S CASE HISTORY……...…………………………………….. Pg.7-13

XII. ARGUMENT ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT Q .#1 …… ……... Pg. 14-25

XIII. ARGUMENT ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT Q .#2 …… …… Pg. 25-37

XIV. ARGUMENT ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREMECOURT Q .#3 …... .…… Pg. 37-38

XV. SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………… Pg. 38

APPENDAGES XVI. DECLARATION OF MAILING CERTIFICATE AFFADAVIT ……………... Pg.1

XVII. COVER APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENT…………………………………… Pg.2

XIII. APPENDIX……………………………………………………………Page Appendix 1-19

BARACK OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICAT…….EXIBIT LAST PAGE

V. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000, (supporting Perkins v. Elg) …………………………………………………

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 No. 09-56827D.C. No. 8 :09-cv-00082-DOC-ANO P I N I O N … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .

vi

Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) ……………………………………

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 ……….

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 ……………………..

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 286 U.S. 49, 61 (1932) (two acts affect to both) ………………………………………………………………………….

Georgia Administrative Hearing- Judge Michael Malihi Feb.3rd,2012 …………..

Haynes v. Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA. 2000) (Established Candidate burden of proof of eligibility) …………………………………………………………………………...

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)………………………………………………………………………….

Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709,710 (1974)……………………………………….

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1805)…………………………………...

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) ……………………………………

Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008)……………………………

Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974) ………………………………….

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) ………………………………………………………………………..

New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission-Taitz v. Obama Nov. 18th,2011………………………………………………………………………..Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) 307 U.S. 325, 350

……………………..

vii

Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (same); NAACP v. Alabama ex rei. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)………………………………………………

Rockefeller ll, 917 F. Supp. at 164. & /d………………………………………….

Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (upholding right of Boy Scouts to exclude gay scoutmaster); ………………………………………………………………………

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)……………………………….

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…………………………………………………………………………..Tashjian, 479 U.S. at 211; /d. at 212;/d. at 216-17, 225 ……………………………

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) …………………………….

VI. STATUTES

U.S.C. Article I. Section.2. Clause 2Section 3: Clause 4 Section 8: Clause 1 Section 10………………..

U.S.C. Article 2. Section 1.Clause 5U.S.C. Article IV. Sect.2. Clause 2 Section 4U.S.C. Article V.U.S.C. Article VI. Clause 2 Clause 3U.S.C. Amendment XIIU.S.C. Amendment XIV. Section 1.

viii

Section 3.

U.S.C. Amendment XV. Section 1 S Section 3 U.S.C. Amendment XX. Section 1.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules 10 (c)(Pg.1,7)

U.S. Supreme Court Rule 11 (Pg.1,6,7)

U.S. Supreme Court Rule 13 (1) (Pg.7)

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 6.)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

O.C.G.A. section 21-2-5

Ga. Code Ann. § 2l-2-132(e)(4) (1998)

ix

IN THE

Supreme Court of Georgia ————

Cody Robert Judy, Petitioner,

v.

Barrack Obama Brian Kemp

Respondent(s)

————

Discretionary Application for Review /or/ Certification of Federal Question of Law

From the Superior Court of Georgia for the County of Fulton, Docket number 2012CV211398, reviewing the decision of the Georgia Office of State

Administrative Hearings Docket number 1215136-60

———

VII. CITATIONS OF THE OFFICIAL and UNOFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE OPINIONS AND ORDERS

1- Georgia Administrative Hearing- Judge Michael Malihi Feb.3rd,2012

Farrar (Judy) v. Obama (Appendix Pg.1-7#3)

2- Farrar( Judy) 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.).

3- Farrar (Judy) 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.)

Page 1

VIII. JURISDICTION STATEMENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:

An application for leave to appeal a final judgment in cases subject to appeal under OCGA§ 5-6-35 shall be granted when: (1) Reversible error appears to exist; (2) The establishment of a precedent is desirable;

Article VI, §VI, ¶II of the Georgia Constitution states: “The Supreme Court shall be a court of review and

shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction in the following cases:...(2) All cases of election contest.

The instant case is an election contest arising from OSGA § 21-2-5.

Therefore this Court has exclusive jurisdiction upon review of the Superior Court’s final judgment.

It is fairly noted herein that the Supreme Court in Weldon v. Obama was denied by the Georgia Supreme

Court on April 4th,2012 Case No. S12D1059 and that Appellant was grouped in the same Administrative

Court ‘ruling’, although circumstances of the Appellant are different in standing and injury, and the

Superior Court records are also different, notably with evidence from a law enforcement agency and

Motion for reconsideration in the Superior Court, those particulars the Georgia Supreme Court may not

want to review, or feel to group together, this case as the same as Weldon v. Obama.

It is therefore simply a consideration of Petitioner/Appellant that under GSCR Rule 65 that good cause is

shown, Appellant not wanting to waste the Georgia Supreme courts time, for expediting the proceeding in

a FINAL ORDER from the Supreme Court that can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, or that the

GA. Supreme Court itself certify the question(s) to the U.S. Supreme Court as a Federal Question to the

United States Supreme Court for the 11th Circuit and lend that in behalf of Petitioner that it be

unavoidable by that Court as pertains to QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT MIGHT BE DECIDED.

Page 2

VIV. STATUTORY PROVISION(S) Because of the statutory provisions being lengthy are set forth in the

Appendix.

X. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1- 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. Born in the United States

ii. To Citizen Parents

b. 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

Page 3

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.

2- The 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

Page 4

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.

3- Second State stop Georgia, Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of

State who referenced the complaint to an Administrative Court

OSAH and was given an opinion and ruling that 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

Page 5

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.

4- Georgia 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

Page 6

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%20Kemp%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.

5- On 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 -02-20 at 0958…Manner: SUBSTITUTE Person Served: Mary Grace Diehl – Wife/Co-ResidentAddress 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

Page 7

6- NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT was signed and

mailed the March 23rd 2012.( Appendix pg 17)

XI. PETITIONER’S CASE HISTORY

1- 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.

2- 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. Whether Barack Obama is eligible for the Presidential Ballot in

Georgia.

i. U.S.C. Article II, Section.1. Clause 5.

b. Whether other candidates should be allowed on the Presidential

Ballot in Georgia.

3- The 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

Page 8

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 042-68-4425

b. P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of

Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using

Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425 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.

Page 9

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.

4- Pursuant 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

Page 10

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.

5- February 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.

6- 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.

7- In 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 2-6), on March 1st2012 Arizona’s Maricopa County

Sheriff Joe Arpaio released the results of a 6 month 2,200 hour Cold

Page 11

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 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 entrusted to the Superior Court of Fulton

County Georgia in the “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.

Page 12

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.

8- Pending 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

Page 13

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.

9- A 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 full 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.

Page 14

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 is 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.

Page 15

10- This 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. ARGUMENT ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT Q #1

a. 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.

Page 16

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

Page 17

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 (1842).

f. 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

Page 18

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. § 2l-2-132(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

Page 19

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.

Page 20

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.

2- 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

Page 21

4- QUESTION #1 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?

a. 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

Page 22

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. The most amazing thing happens when a Candidate for President, say

from Kenya, shows up at the Democratic Party Office with 20 Million

dollars in his campaign war chest, there’s a ball that’s rolling and it just

keeps on rolling and gets bigger and bigger. Now if you bust that

bubble before that illegal unqualified potential usurper ever collected a

dollar you don’t have a big problem or a big temptation that’s got

foreign sugar on it.

c. 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

Page 23

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.

d. 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

Page 24

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)

e. 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.

f. 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

Page 25

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.''

g. 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.

h. 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

i. Like general elections, party primaries exist as a major

avenue for political participation. Our political system

provides few opportunities for the average citizen to play a

role in the workings of the democracy. Voting, both in the

primary and in the general election, represents the principal

opportunity for political participation for most Americans.

_______________________________

Page 26

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.

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.

j. 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.

k. 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

Page 27

for a candidate of their choice, not the choice of those who

regulate the ballot.

l. 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

Page 28

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.

m. 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 primary 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.

n. The lower Court erred in either not eliminating Barack

Obama’s name from the Ballot so that the Democratic Party

Page 29

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. ARGUMENT ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT Q .#2

5- 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

Page 30

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 Obama delivered up)

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;]

b. 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 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.

Page 31

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

Page 32

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.

Page 33

c. 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

Page 34

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.

d. 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

Page 35

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”).

e. 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 3 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

Page 36

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.

f. 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.

g. 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

Page 37

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.)

h. he 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

Page 38

children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the

condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

i. 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.

j. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) The citizens are the

members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain

Page 39

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. . . .

k. 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 natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or

foreigners.

l. 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

Page 40

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:

Page 41

i. 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.

m. 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.”

n. 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

Page 42

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.

o. 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 non-

U.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

Page 43

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.

p. 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

Page 44

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

Page 45

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 THE SUPREMECOURT Q .#3

6- 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

Page 46

the excused conviction of all others heretofore convicted by any Court

under the Georgia 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.

XV. SUMMARY OF THE DISCRETIONARY APPLICATION FOR

REVEIW

The Petitioner has shown the Court the egregious error of Georgia Secretary of

State Brian Kemp and Barack Obama maliciously hurting his person, his Campaign

as a Candidate for President of the United States, and the United States, in such

that an exercise of the Court’s “supervisory authority” is called for in upholding the

‘natural born citizen’ qualification demand of the Office of the President.

1- The Discretionary Application For Review should be granted;

2- An injunction made by the Court remanding Secretary of State Kemp’s

Certification of the GA. Primary disqualifying Barack Obama thereby freeing

up Delegates that are bound in the Democratic Party that can be courted in

the Democratic Party National Convention Sept. 2012.

3- For punitive damage a monetary token award of $1,000,000.00 U.S. dollars

from Barack Obama and Brian Kemp Secretary of State should be respectfully

awarded the Petitioner for an example, and/or the equivalent expense of wire

fraud costing Georgia Citizens contributions, the total cost of Georgia’s State

Primary, recompensed by Obama, and or his billion dollar Campaign, divided

to the State and Petitioner, whichever the Court deems appropriate.

Signed and submitted this 30th day of May, 2012. /s/ Cody Robert Judy

_______________________

Cody Robert Judy pro se petitioner 3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2 Ogden, UT

8440

Page 47

Counsel for Respondent Barack ObamaMichael Jablonski 260 Brighton Road NE Atlanta, GA. 30309-1523 michael.jablonski@comcast.net

Counsel for Respondent Brian Kemp Secretary of State Brian Kemp Georgia Secretary of State’s Office –Executive Office 214 State Capital Atlanta GA. 30334- cale@sos.ga.gov , vrusso@sos.ga.gov

Page 48

XVI. CERTIFICATION OF MAILING

I do hereby certify that I electronically emailed and/or/ mailed via postage pre-paid 1st Class U.S. Mail, a true and correct copy of the forgoing:

1. DISCRETIONARY APPLICATION FOR REVIEW/or/ CERTIFICATION OF FEDERAL QUESTION OF LAW.

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 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 michael.jablonski@comcast.net

2-Secretary of State Brian Kemp Georgia Secretary of State’s Office –Executive Office 214 State Capital Atlanta GA. 30334- cale@sos.ga.gov , vrusso@sos.ga.gov

3- Sam Olens-Office of the Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, Ga

30334. Phone: (404) 656-3300 Email: solens@law.ga.gov

4- Cody Robert Judy- 3031 Ogden Avenue, Suite #2, Ogden, UT. 84401

codyjudy@hotmail.com

5-Clerk, Supreme Court of Georgia, Room 572, 244 Washington Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30334. 

On this the 31TH Day of May, 2012.

Signature of Mailer __/s/__Cody Robert Judy__________________________

NOTARY SEAL SIGNITURE: s/Recorder

 

Page 1

XVII. IN THE

Supreme Court of Georgia ————

Cody Robert Judy, Petitioner,

v.

Barrack Obama Brian Kemp , William M. Gardner

Respondent(s)

APPENDIX COVER

PART APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX PAGE

1- OPINIONS ORDERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH JUDGEMENTS SOUGHT A-Z 1-9

2- U.S.CONSTITUTION REFERENCE NUMERICAL ORDER 10-11

3- U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE REFERENCES A-Z 11-12

4- FEDERAL AND STATE STATUE RULES A-Z 11-12

5- OTHER COURT CASE REFERENCES A-Z 12-14

6- OTHER MATERIAL NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE CASE 14-16

7- NOTICE OF APPEAL 17-19

8- BARRACK OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE EXHIBIT LAST PAGE

Page 1

Page 2

APPENDIX 3 of 19

XVIII. APPENDIX

Part 1. OPINIONS, ORDERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH JUDGEMENT SOUGHT A-Z.

1- Oral Hearing-New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission- Taitz v. Gardner Nov. 18th ,2011 (Pg.) 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.

2- Pending - 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.6) 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 by-laws of the Commission that prohibited members from making political contributions to the ‘Candidate’ in question Barack Obama.

3- Written Opinion and Order- Georgia Administrative Court; Farrar v. Obama; Case No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI; handed down Feb. 3rd, 2012. (pg.)

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. § 21-2-5(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

APPENDIX Page 3

APPENDIX 4 of 19

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 co-plaintiffs, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, and Laurie Roth, and does not 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. 616-1-2-.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,

APPENDIX Page 4

APPENDIX 5 of 19

i. 2 Originally, Ms. Taitz indicated to the Court that she would offer the testimony of seven 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 step-down 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.

e- II. 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.

APPENDIX Page 5

APPENDIX 6 of 19

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

4 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 685-86; 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

APPENDIX Page 6

APPENDIX 7 of 19

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

APPENDIX Page 7

APPENDIX 8 of 19

to alien parents, became a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth. 5 Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705.

5 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

APPENDIX Page 8

APPENDIX 9 of 19

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

6 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.

APPENDIX Page 9

APPENDIX 10 of 19

4- Written 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 6,10,23)

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

APPENDIX Page 10

APPENDIX 11 of 19

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 § 21-2-191. 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 § 21-2-2(5) and 21-2-5.

1 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. §

APPENDIX Page 11

APPENDIX 12 of 19

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 RECONSIDERATIONThe above-captioned action is before the Court on the Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiffs Cody

APPENDIX Page 12

APPENDIX 13 of 19

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

5- Pending 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.

Part 2. CONSTITUTION REFERENCE NUMERICAL ORDER

APPENDIX Page 13

APPENDIX 14 of 19

6- 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;] (Pg. 8,20,21,35,36)

7- 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;] (Pg.7,8,12,18,20,30,31,32,35,36)

8- U.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. 8,17,22,29)

9- U.S.C. Art. V. [The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,](Pg. 9,36)

10- 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;](Pg.9,20,)

11- U.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.9,24)

APPENDIX Page 14

APPENDIX 15 of 19

12- U.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.9,15,30,31,32,34,35,41)

13- U.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.9,24)

14- U.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.10,29)

Part 3. U.S. SUPREME CRT CASE REFERENCE A-Z

15- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Pg.10,38)

16- Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) (Pg.10,30,32,33,34,35)

17- Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) 307 U.S. 325, 350 (Pg.10,39)

18- Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) (Pg.10,37)

19- The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) (Pg.10,36)20- United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)(Pg.10,31,38)

Part 4. FEDERAL & STATE STATUTES AND RULES

21- U.S. Supreme Court Rules 10 (c)(Pg.1,7)

22- U.S. Supreme Court Rule 11 (Pg.1,6,7)

APPENDIX Page 15

APPENDIX 16 of 19

23- U.S. Supreme Court Rule 13 (1) (Pg.7)

24- U.S. Supreme Court 14.1(e)(v) (Pg. 8)

25- U.S. Supreme Court Rule 22.1 (Pg.7)

26- U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.4 (b)(c) (Pg.8)

27-28 U.S.C. §2101(e). (Pg 6.)28- 28 U. S. C. § 2403(a) (Pg.8)29- 28 U. S. C. § 2403(b) (Pg.8)30- 28 U. S. C. § 451 (Pg. 8)31- 28 U. S. C. § 2403(b) (pg.8)32- 28 U. S. C. § 1746 (Pg.45,46)

33- O.C.G.A. § 21-2-6 stating “any voter eligible to vote for such

candidate may challenge the qualifications of a candidate. (Pg. 3)

34- O.C.G.A. section 21-2-5 [timely ballot candidate challenge to

Secretary of State (Pg.14)

35- Ga. Code Ann. § 2l-2-132(e)(4) (1998) (Candidate must swear

eligible to run) (Pg.19)

Part 5. OTHER COURT CASE REFERENCE A-Z

36- 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)

37-Anderson v. Celebrezze (quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. at 803 n.30) ( 2 party

disadvantaged independent candidates) (Pg.24)

38-Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) Ruling ‘natural

born citizen’ same as ‘citizen’ 14th Amendment. (Pg.15,31)

39- Barnett v. Obama No. 09-56827D.C. No. 8 :09-cv-00082-

DOC-ANO P I N I O N ( Pg.iii)

40-Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (not authorized to change

meaning) (Pg.)

41-Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (upholding right of Boy

Scouts to exclude gay scoutmaster); (Pg.19 )

APPENDIX Page 16

APPENDIX 17 of 19

42-General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 286 U.S. 49, 61 (1932)

(two acts affect to both) (Pg. )

43-Georgia Administrative Hearing- Judge Michael Malihi Feb.3rd,2012 (Pg.)

44-Haynes v. Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA. 2000) (Established Candidate burden of

proof of eligibility) (Pg.)

45-Henderson’s Tobacco, 78 U.S. 652 657 (1870) (two acts affect to both)

(Pg.)

46-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.).

47-Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709,710 (1974) (undue burdens unjustified to

candidates right to vote heavily burdened only 2 candidates) (Pg.)

48-Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1805) Constitutional Construction

prohibited (Pg. )

49-Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008) (not authorized to

change meaning) (Pg.)

50-Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974) (two acts affects to both)

(Pg.)

51-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) (Pg.19).

52-); NAACP v. Alabama ex rei. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (pg 20)

53- New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission- Nov. 18th,2011(Pg.)

54-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. (Pg.).

55-Rockefeller ll, 917 F. Supp. at 164. & /d..(Against State Party favored

nominee) (Pg.)

APPENDIX Page 17

APPENDIX 18 of 19

56-Superior Court of Fulton County ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY EXPARTE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION entered on Record March 15th,2012. (Pg.)

57-Superior Court of Fulton County ORDER Granting Respondent Barack

Obama’s MOTION TO DISMISS entered on Record March 2nd,2012 (Pg.)

58- Supreme Court State Of New Hampshire- Petition For Review Of

An Unlawful And Unreasonable Ruling By An Administrative Agency

Case No.: 2011-0E80 (Pg.)

59-Tashjian, 479 U.S. at 211; /d. at 212;/d. at 216-17, 225 (freedom of

association with open primary) (Pg. )

60-United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939) (two acts affect to

both ) (Pg.)

61-United States v. Tynen, 78 U.S. 88 (1870); (two acts affect to both) (Pg. )

62-Wood v. United States, 41 U.S. 342, 362-63 (1842) (two acts affect to

both) (Pg. )

Part 6 OTHER MATERIAL NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND CASE

63- . 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.33)

64- Affidavit(s) P1 through P10) (Pg.8,9,10)

65- 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.25)

66- Congressional Research Service (CRS) Jack Maskell Memo referring

Minor case as precedent for ‘foreign parents’ –Citizens- as ‘natural born

citizen’ (Pg.25)

67- Declaration of Mailing (Pg.)

APPENDIX Page 18

APPENDIX 19 of 19

68- Democratic Georgia Primary Result link Obama 100%

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/GA-D (Pg.)

69- Every TREATIES, STATUTES ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, or

EXECUTIVE ORDER that has been signed, agreed or penned by Barack

Hussein Obama II since his publically blundered inauguration. (Pg.)

70- Federal Elections Commission (F.E.C.) (Pg.ii, 12,16,22)

http://www.sos.ga.gov/pressrel/elections/20120314Secretary%20of

%20State%20Kemp%20Certifies%20Presidential%20Preference

%20Primary%20Results.htm (Pg.6)

71- Hulton 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.)

72- James Parker Hall, American Law and Procedure xlviii (1952); (see

also Id. at 1195 defining “precedent” and quoting) (Pg

73- John Jay’s letter to George Washington dated 25 July 1787 (Pg.29)

74- 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.30)

75-NOTICE OF APPEAL dated March 23rd,2012 (Pg.7,)

76- Obama released long form birth certificate White House April

27th,2011. (Pg.)

APPENDIX Page 19

APPENDIX 20 of 19

77- Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution pg. 2791 (referenced 2

qualifications for natural born citizen) (Pg.31) (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd

Sess., 1639 (1862) (of parents owing allegiance to no other

sovereignty, are natural born citizens) (Pg.43) (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st

Sess., 1291 (1866) (natural born citizen-born in the U.S. to citizen

parents not owing any foreign allegiance.) (Pg.32).

78- Secretary of State Certification of GA. Preferential Primary Link:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/GA-D (Pg 6

79-Service of Process Record Obama & GA. Sec. Of State (Pg.6)

80- 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.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes-posse-probable-cause-

obama-certificate-a-fraud/ ………………….

(Pg.10,13,22,33)

81- 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.26)

APPENDIX Page 20

APPENDIX 21 of 19

Link 2: http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2011/06/crs-memorandum-dumbs-

down-congress-on.html

………………………………………………………………

(Pg.26)

82- U.S. Senate non-binding Resolution 511 (declared John McCain a

natural born citizen)

…………………………………………………………….(Pg. 31)

Notice of Appeal CODY ROBERT JUDYPro Se3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite 2Ogden, UT. 84403(801)497-6655Email: codyjudy@hotmail.comWeb Site: www.codyjudy.us ___________________________________________________________________

FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF GEORGIA __________________________________________________________

CODY ROBERT JUDY, NOTICE OF APPEAL Petitioner, v. Case # 2012-CV-211398

BARACK OBAMA, Judge: Cynthia D. WrightSECRETARY OF STATE BRIAN KEMP Respondent(s).

___________________________________________________________

APPENDIX Page 21

APPENDIX 22 of 19

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 23 rd Day of March, 2012. /s/ Cody Robert

Judy_________________________

APPENDIX Page 22

APPENDIX 1 of 19

CODY ROBERT JUDY 3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2 Ogden, UT 84401 PH. 801-497-6655

_____________________________________________________________________________

FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF GEORGIA

______________________________________________________________________________

CODY ROBERT JUDY, AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 2012-CV-211398

BARACK OBAMA, SECRETARY OF STATE BRIAN KEMP Judge: CYNTHIA D. WRIGHT

Respondent(s)

___________________________________________________________________________

Comes now, Petitioner, CODY ROBERT JUDY pro se, and submits respectfully to the Fulton

county Superior Court this AMMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL to the GEORGIA SUPREME COURT

of the Order of the Court dated March 2nd, 2012, and March 15th,2012, pursuant: DISCRETIONARY

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW /OR/ CERTIFICATION OF FEDERAL QUESTION OF LAW.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:

An application for leave to appeal a final judgment in cases subject to appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35 shall be granted when: (1) Reversible error appears to exist; (2) The establishment of a precedent is desirable;

Article VI, §VI, ¶II of the Georgia Constitution states: “The Supreme Court shall be a court of review and

shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction in the following cases:...(2) All cases of election contest.

The instant case is an election contest arising from OSGA § 21-2-5.

Therefore this Court has exclusive jurisdiction upon review of the Superior Court’s final judgment.

APPENDIX Page 1

APPENDIX 2 of 19

It is fairly noted herein that the Supreme Court in Weldon v. Obama was denied by the Georgia Supreme

Court on April 4th,2012 Case No. S12D1059 and that Appellant was grouped in the same Administrative

Court ‘ruling’, although circumstances of the Appellant are different in standing and injury, and the

Superior Court records are also different, notably with evidence from a law enforcement agency and

Motion for reconsideration in the Superior Court, those particulars the Georgia Supreme Court may not

want to review, or feel to group together, this case as the same as Weldon v. Obama.

It is therefore simply a consideration of Petitioner/Appellant that under GSCR Rule 65 that good cause is

shown, Appellant not wanting to waste the Georgia Supreme courts time, for expediting the proceeding in

a FINAL ORDER from the Supreme Court that can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, or that the

GA. Supreme Court itself certify the question(s) to the U.S. Supreme Court as a Federal Question to the

United States Supreme Court for the 11th Circuit and lend that in behalf of Petitioner that it be

unavoidable by that Court as:

VI. QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT MIGHT BE DECIDED:

7- 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?

8- Question - Is Respondent candidate Mr. Barack Obama eligible for the Office

of President according to the United States Constitution’s demands for a

APPENDIX Page 2

APPENDIX 3 of 19

‘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?

9- 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?

This AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL is also subject to May 8th,2012 letter from Cathelene “Tina”

Robinson, clerk of Superior Court, Records and Document Specialist Appeals Division, that was received

registered and signature certified mail by Petitioner/Appellant Cody Robert Judy on May 24th,2012,

stating that “ Once an amended notice of appeal is received, the appellate record will be prepared and

transmitted”.

Petitioner/Appellant herein also swears and affirms that owing to my poverty I am unable to afford the

fees that may be associated with this appeal however that I feel I am entitled to appeal.

Signed and Submitted this the 29th day of May,2012.

/s/ Cody Robert Judy _________________________

APPENDIX Page 3

APPENDIX 4 of 19

APPENDIX Page 4