Cody Robert Judy

mimi · **Posted:** Thu May 03, 2012 11:14 pm

i'm posting Judy's petition for certaki here.

Revised Petition for Writ of Certiorari Judy v. Obama U.S. Supreme Crt

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92320605/Revi ... upreme-Crt

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu May 03, 2012 11:15 pm

Piffle · **Posted:** Thu May 03, 2012 11:30 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

:yawn:

Aw come on Stern, you must be really grumpy if you don't find it at least slightly amusing that this bomber-buffoon still thinks the the "court below" is the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

And how 'bout that spiffy font he used on the title page? Quality work I telz ya.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu May 03, 2012 11:36 pm

From my reading of the petition (title page) he's asking the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari to itself. That one works every time. (Maybe Taitz should file an amicus and ask to have her photocopy salesman computer expert rifle through all of the Supreme Court's computers.)

ObjectiveDoubter · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2012 12:07 am

Oh noooooo! Apparently yet another birfer mad at Orly!

Quote:

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 theJudge’s Wright’s prior personal history in criminal case involving a relationship she was involved with,and unwilling to assist petitioner whatsoever,

Quote:

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 Judywho 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

Reality Check · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2012 10:58 am

I am confused. Is this Farrar's case that Judy tried to join later? Has Orly dumped poor FUBAR?

Piffle · **Posted:** Fri May 04, 2012 1:09 pm

Reality Check wrote:

I am confused. Is this Farrar's case that Judy tried to join later? Has Orly dumped poor FUBAR?

I'm confused too. Just what did happen to FUBAR? After Orly was excised at the superior court level, I thought he was tag-teaming with Judy.

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1428

Quote:

The point is irrespective of Congress Law and the confusion existing between Congress's differing points of view I have shown you, Natural Law can not be circumvented. The point of including "Born in the U.S." was precisely for a 'natural affection' of the place of where it all begin. No doubt, for McCain that is Panama which has not become a 51st State of the United States as far as I know.

To add insult to injury is Sen. Res 511 which correctly pointed out was non-binding for McCain's "natural born citizenship".

If the Military men and women act in an egotistical logic against the Constitution, how in the hell can they defend it?

Cody over at ORYR today

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/05/colonel-lawrence-sellin-censorship-and.html#comment-form

mimi · **Posted:** Sat May 05, 2012 7:14 pm

Cody thinks those born on military bases aren't eligible to become President?

What a chicken shit little asshole he is.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23519

Love Letters in the Sand.

Cody complains about SCOTUS clerks...

And just to back up his claim

Of course, even if the clerk misstated the dates, the fact still remains...

Quote:

“Dear Mr. Judy
- The above entitled petition for a writ of certiorari was originally postmarked April 4th, 2012 and received again on April 24th, 2012. The papers are returned for the following reason(s): For the reasons stated in prior correspondence from this office. It does not appear that you have case pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in order to file a Rule 11 petition. Sincerely William K. Suter, Clerk By: Gail Johnson

Piffle · **Posted:** Mon May 14, 2012 9:57 am

realist wrote:

Love Letters in the Sand.

Cody complains about SCOTUS clerks...

And just to back up his claim

Of course, even if the clerk misstated the dates, the fact still remains...

Quote:

“Dear Mr. Judy
- The above entitled petition for a writ of certiorari was originally postmarked April 4th, 2012 and received again on April 24th, 2012. The papers are returned for the following reason(s): For the reasons stated in prior correspondence from this office. It does not appear that you have case pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in order to file a Rule 11 petition. Sincerely William K. Suter, Clerk By: Gail Johnson

What a moran this guy is. The clerk's letter is quite easy to explain, but it does require some basic reading skills.

Judy filed a petition for cert on April 4. (I'm using Cody's own date as posted with the copy he uploaded to scribd.) As folks like Cody are wont to do, he's sent other crap to the court since then, but he doesn't seem to understand that the Court's staff doesn't necessarily drop everything they're doing when they get a pile of poo from some pro se idiot and figure out how the new pile intersects with the old pile.

On the cover of his April 4th pile, he petitioned for cert directed at the 11th Circuit.* So it's natural enough that the clerk's office would do a doc check with the 11th to see what Cody had in the mill there. Note that his biggest problem all along is that he doesn't appeal any particular order of any specific court. He just thinks he can drop in and haggle Constitutional law on the basis of a dead state law case -- or no basis at all.

So the clerk does some head scratching and says, "WFT? I'm not seeing anything at the 11th." So then, if there's no order or opinion at the 11th, maybe this fool is trying an interlocutory appeal prior to issuance of judgment. And that's where Supreme Court Rule 11 (not FRPC Rule 11!) kicks in:

SC Rule 11 wrote:

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 this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).

Yoo hoo, Mr. Judy. Do you get it now, you moron?

____
* The whole idea behind a writ of certiorari is to order up the record from the court below pertaining to a decision that's being appealed. It isn't simply some kind of general permission to have your case heard; it's the formal mechanism by which SCOTUS commands the record and takes jurisdiction from some lower court.

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1428

So he's accusing the clerk of having mental problems? Yeh, that'll work.

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Mon May 14, 2012 12:57 pm

BillTheCat wrote:

So he's accusing the clerk of having mental problems? Yeh, that'll work.

He's projecting again. still.

BFB · **Posted:** Mon May 14, 2012 12:59 pm

I'm still dealing with that music video he did. I think I may be permanently scarred ...

bob · **Posted:** Mon May 14, 2012 3:20 pm

OBC:

Cody Judy wrote:

The long arm of Obama reaches deep within the U.S. Supreme Court Clerks Office denying the Justices access to the Petition that is sure to put Obama’s eligibility in front of the Justices as it never has been before.

Read the letter yourself sent from the U.S. Supreme Court to Cody Robert Judy. See the evidence of facts that present themselves showing a complete disregard for law and a delusion by the Court clerks explainable by the reach of Obama into the clerks office, or a complete breakdown of competence forming a disability at the junction between what the Justices’s see and don’t see.

Awesome use of the word "explainable."

Baltimore's loss yesterday to Tampa Bay is explainable by Obama's deep reach. "The Artist"'s success at the Oscars was explainable by Obama's deep reach. This poorly made martini is explainable by Obama's deep reach.

BFB · **Posted:** Mon May 14, 2012 3:32 pm

bob wrote:

OBC:

Cody Judy wrote:

The long arm of Obama reaches deep within the U.S. Supreme Court Clerks Office denying the Justices access to the Petition that is sure to put Obama’s eligibility in front of the Justices as it never has been before.

Read the letter yourself sent from the U.S. Supreme Court to Cody Robert Judy. See the evidence of facts that present themselves showing a complete disregard for law and a delusion by the Court clerks explainable by the reach of Obama into the clerks office, or a complete breakdown of competence forming a disability at the junction between what the Justices’s see and don’t see.

Awesome use of the word "explainable."

Baltimore's loss yesterday to Tampa Bay is explainable by Obama's deep reach. "The Artist"'s success at the Oscars was explainable by Obama's deep reach. This poorly made martini is explainable by Obama's deep reach.

Cody Robert Judy thinking he can sing is unexplainable.

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Mon May 14, 2012 5:03 pm

bob wrote:

OBC:

Cody Judy wrote:

The long arm of Obama reaches deep withinthe U.S. Supreme Court Clerks Office denying the Justices access to the Petition that is sure to put Obama’s eligibility in front of the Justices as it never has been before.

Read the letter yourself sent from the U.S. Supreme Court to Cody Robert Judy. See the evidence of facts that present themselves showing a complete disregard for law and a delusion by the Court clerks explainable by the reach of Obama into the clerks office, or a complete breakdown of competence forming a disability at the junction between what the Justices’s see and don’t see.

Awesome use of the word "explainable."

Baltimore's loss yesterday to Tampa Bay is explainable by Obama's deep reach. "The Artist"'s success at the Oscars was explainable by Obama's deep reach. This poorly made martini is explainable by Obama's deep reach.

Well, the conspiracy goes even further: Birthers are explainable by Obama's deep reach to let Republicans look real bad :mrgreen:

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23519

You guys just don't get it!!!!! :((

But Cody does...

Cody continues to try to 'splain to the Sumpreme Court Clerk Suter why the Court hazta allow him to file his... whatever it is and they indeed haz jurisdiction. In part because Cody's case involves 2 states and 2 secretaries of state. No. Really!!

Quote:

I do understand that in most all cases, the Court has only appellate jurisdiction and that it considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; while almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal and in practice the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states, or when an Act of Congress is called into question- my case involves both- two states with two Secretaries of States official capacity in a Federal Election question in which I as a party INDEED CAN RECEIVE RELIEF FROM INJURY with a favorable decision in future primaries of western States, and also in the Democratic Party National Convention where I am free to court delegates who are un-bound in the Primaries of New Hampshire and Georgia by a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that Barack Obama is not eligible under the U.S. Constitution Art. II, Sect.1, clause 5 referring to us only a "Natural Born Citizen‟ is eligible for the Office of the President.
Arizona's Secretary State is now in contention of not placing Obama's name on the Ballot because he's not eligible. How is this not an Original Jurisdiction moment in our history Sir? :lol:

[...]

Thank you for your attention to my original jurisdiction argument. Its just amazing to me
that I‟m having this argument with you in the first place but the American people will see
eventually how transparent this has been if you send me my Writ back without a case number and the embarrassment of this argument will undoubtedly last longer than Obama will in any illegal capacity.

Sincerely,Cody Robert Judy
The Cody Robert Judy for President 2012 Eligibility Campaign
cc: Scribd link – Media of U.S., all Social Media of United States Citizens

Lots more nutty goodness here

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 7:43 pm

When Mr. Judy becomes a state he can sue another state in SCOTUS.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23519

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

When Mr. Judy becomes a state he can sue another state in SCOTUS.

GMTA Stern.

Jack left a very similar comment for Cody...

Quote:

Jack Ryan

When you become a state you can then sue another state and SCOTUS can take original jurisdiction

Piffle · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 8:03 pm

And Judy's statehood would only solve half the problem. Since this case is styled Judy v. Obama & Kemp, Messrs. Obama and Kemp would need to become states too.

Plutodog · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 8:04 pm

realist wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

When Mr. Judy becomes a state he can sue another state in SCOTUS.

GMTA Stern.

Jack left a very similar comment for Cody...

Quote:

Jack Ryan

When you become a state you can then sue another state and SCOTUS can take original jurisdiction

Spoil sports and their "great minds". Hmmmph! :evil:

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 8:05 pm

Yabbut

Show Spoiler

Dr. Blue · **Joined:** Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:01 am **Posts:** 306

OK, I just gotta quote this here, in case people don't go read the craziness themselves. This is one for the "wow, where did that come from" books:

Quote:

If a women by law has a right of choice in an abortion, and she does right now, then I as a candidate also have a right to be heard before the Democratic Party - a major party in the United States, in which I am running, chooses an ineligible and constitutionally unqualified candidate by those who protect precedent - The United States Supreme Court.

I can't actually parse that sentence toward the end, but the gist of the beginning seems to be this: if a woman can have an abortion, you have to hear my case.

How can you argue with logic like that? Checkmate! We're done for!!!!! :((

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Sun May 20, 2012 9:06 pm

Judy has always wanted people to pay attention to him. Once again no one is, except to shake heads and laugh. (Other than Orly Taitz and Pam Barnett who look upon him as some kind of Oracle.)

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Cody Robert Judy

Who is online