Judy V. Obama

Cody Robert Judy Pro Se 1318 North 1500 West Farr West, Utah 84404 (801) 497-6655 [email protected] www.codyjudy.us _____________________________________________________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

411 West Fourth Street, Room 1053, Santa Anna, California 92701-4516 PAMELA BARNETT

)

Et.al., (CODY ROBERT JUDY)

) )

Plaintiff,

)

V.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE  DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  COMMITTEE,

Et al., 1-4 et al.,

MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER

)

AND AMENDMENT TO THE

) )

CIVIL RIGHTS / FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMPLAINT

)

(42 U.S.C.19§83 or§ 1985

)

U.S. Constitution Art.II Sect.1 )

)

BY ADDITIONAL CANDIDATE

)

IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2008 / WITH MOTION TO RECONSIDER/.

)

)

1

Civil No. . 8:09-cv-82

Defendant

)

Judge: HONORABLE DAVID O.CARTER

____________________________________________________________________________________

The Plaintiff, appearing Pro Se, humbly submits this Motion for Permissive Joiner and Amendment To This Civil Action By Additional Candidate In Presidential Election 2008 for consideration with Motion to Reconsider from Orly Taitz. Finding first Defendant(s) Barrack Hussein Obama as constitutionally ineligible to run for president, or Officiate as President of the United States. Finding second, Co-Defendants as party to that knowledge collaborating under the umbrella of election fraud in knowingly placing an unqualified candidate on the ballot that infringed upon Plaintiff the Natural Born Citizen requirement (NBC) clause of the Constitution. While it may rest in the Congress to pass a bill of vetting under process of the 25th Amendment as a forum by which if the President is found to be incapacitated for some reason he could be removed, and a judgment against him on the NBC qualification might establish the need for a such a procedure, this case remains simply a test of constitutional qualification between contestants in the election of 2008, as to rights of equality set by a standard qualification of Constitutional mandate. While removing a sitting President may be a province of Congress, the election is a province of the people, and Congress in fact originates as electorate of the people. It follows a complaint might originate from The People (herein as Plaintiff) for Congress to act upon. Nixon was addressed by a reporter and then by Congress. As declared Winners of the race, they are found responsibly owing the Plaintiff, contracted by the presumed alteration or presumed altercation if you will, of the substantive standard framed under Guideline of the U.S. Constitution: Mandating the qualification U.S.C Art.II Sect. 1:“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…”; that Barack Hussein Obama as a candidate, and now the de facto if not de jure President since January 21st, 2009, in portrait of winning the election, meets the criteria for the injurious claim of the Plaintiff that he has suffered from the Defendant posing a legitimate direct injury calculable to the Plaintiff, which he claims now in Campaign expenses, election race contestant qualification fairness, constitutional law inalienable to his Rights as a natural born 2

citizen of the United States and candidate of the 2008 Presidential Elections, upholding the Constitution of the Republic for which the Plaintiff is Taking a Stand.

____________________________________ PARTIES JURISDICTION PROPER FEDERAL CIVIL ACTION ______________________________ 1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. §1343 (civil rights), 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) § 241 § 242, and Civil Rights Act 1861,42 U.S.C. §§1983,1985 (3) ,1988 (civil rights action Plaintiff seeks declaratory or injunctive relief). Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §2201-2202 as well as 1988(a) §1332 (2) (1) U.S. Constitution Venue is proper and Election Statutes pertaining to U.S. Federal Law overseen in U.S. District Court, FRCP Rule 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (No. 20 addresses permissive joinder. Permissive joinder allows multiple plaintiffs to join in an action if each of their claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence, and if there is a common question of law or fact relating to all plaintiffs' claims. Permissive joinder is also appropriate to join multiple defendants, as long as the same considerations as for joining multiple plaintiffs are met):( FRCP 15a. There is a discretionary period during which original pleadings may be amended, that is as a matter of course at the beginning of trial, and later with the discretion of the opposing party or judge. Rules 18 and 20 delineate who can be joined. However, if not pleaded originally, parties can be brought in only by way of amendment. Rule 15 describes the process for amending a claim. Under the concept of compulsory joinder, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 mandates that some parties be joined. Parties that must be joined are those necessary and indispensable to the litigation.)

2-Plaintiff: Cody Robert Judy- Resident of Utah 1318 North 1500 West, Farr West, Utah 84404 3-Defendant: Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro - Resident 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington DC a- Second Defendant- Democrat National Committee et.al., (1-5 named as they are in respective residences and as citizens) Mailing Address: Democrat Headquarters (Offices insert address) 4-Defendant(s) was/were not acting under color of state law in action. a- This action constitutes a national election of which the State of UTAH is a part, and in and as such has authority in the Federal Court Division of UTAH, to consider and interpret the U.S. Constitution, as a Judicial Function of the U.S. Government. 3

NATURE OF CASE 5. The Plaintiff asserts his claim of the damages of which relief should be granted by this Federal Court. In another Federal Court (Las Vegas, NV.) that assumed Plaintiff’s “standing” claim against Sen. John McCain as a presidential candidate, but declared the Constitutional question or natural born citizenship claim “moot” after the general election results. This was summarily seen as defaulting the winner of the election responsible to assuage the natural born citizenship clause and claim of damages first rather then a 2nd place finisher as Senator McCain received 46% of the popular vote which point is moot. For this cause is Barack Hussein Obama brought as a Defendant now equally under the law along with the other Defendants. The nature of this case is simply to review the differences of two individual people’s citizenship and then to comparatively qualify those with the definitive qualifications of the candidates declared office, in this case the President of the United States, which is found in the U.S. Constitution an immutable frame under the expert interpretation and redress authority of this court as a Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government, ( varying in degree to the Legislative Branch which makes laws and the Executive Branch which enforces law ) and consider the unique political injury by the defendant candidate not being qualified to Plaintiff who is qualified, as the claim for merit considering the reward to the unqualified candidate as winning a race he had no business being in substantiating a concrete invasion of legally protected interest, to the slight, unfair, and injury of a qualified candidate who had a personal vested monetary interest which was lost as expenses of the election race and the responsibility of the unqualified candidate to reimburse said expenses to recover the Plaintiff’s actual monetary injury or loss representing his “personal stake” then needed to support recovery with a favorable decision. This establishing standing, Sierra club v. Environmental Protection Agency 292 F. 3d 895,901 (D.C. Circuit 2002), satisfying the

4

‘irreducible Constitutional minimum’ of Art III standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,560,112 S. Ct. 2130,119 L. Ed 2d 351 (1992). a. The Plaintiff has been denied access Joinder to this action by Orly Taitz esq. preponderantly because she felt the military defendants provided the best chance for the action, and has for that matter has held against Plaintiff due in part by his action against Senator John McCain in the Federal Las Vegas Court filed on the same claim that Senator McCain was not a Natural Born Citizen and thereby was not qualified to be a Presidential candidate giving the nature for this action, however she did recommend Plaintiff file the Amicus Curiae which he did giving merit to substantiate the argument. (see a sample of emails with dates back to the filing of this case Orly Taitz email to the Plaintiff in (b). b. Re: Amicus to Judge Carter‫‏‬

From:

Orly Taitz ([email protected]) Sent: Thu 7/09/09 2:51 PM To: cody judy ([email protected]) please, fedex it to judge Carter Orly Taitz DDS Esq 26302 La Paz ste 211 Mission Viejo Ca 92691 29839 S. Margarita Pkwy Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688 ph. w 949-586-8110 c-949-683-5411 fax 949-586-2082 --- On Thu, 7/9/09, cody judy wrote: From: cody judy Subject: Re: Amicus to Judge Carter To: "Orly Taitz/lawyer/obamaQ.d" Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 7:32 AM From: Sent: To:

Orly Taitz ([email protected]) Tue 5/26/09 12:20 AM Cody Judy ([email protected])

Dear Mr. Judy, this is to cinfirm that I will fly to Utah to meet with governor Herbert and provide information regarding Mr. Obama's lack of

5

eligibility for presidency. List of my plaintiffs is attached. Sincerely Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ re Applicants ( all applicants of this action listed).

Your law suit‫‏‬ From:

cody judy ([email protected])

Sent: Sat 1/24/09 6:04 AM To:

[email protected]

Dear Dr. Taitz, Thank you so much for your hard work on the Obama Qualification issue in defense of our U.S. Constitution. Please consider my utmost cooperation with you at any stage of your U.S. Supreme Court Case if I can be of service. Please find a brief history of what I have been involved in doing to represent the same issue of our U.S. Constitution. I was also a candidate for president and filed a law suit which you can read on my web site. www.codyjudy.us Ltr to President Bush Ltr to Senator(s) Ltr. to U.S. Supreme Court Justices U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Curiae Judy v. McCain 08-cv-01162 The one good thing I believe about my case is that I challenged McCain's birth with expert testimony which had researched the laws at the time of McCain's birth and found and argument for "a naturalized" status. The Judge was a bugger and delayed and delayed my case until the case was moot. I also exhibited Phillip Berg's Cert. in Berg v. Obama before the U.S. Supreme Court as an "Emergency Exhibit of Evidense" in my case Judy v. McCain. I guess the point is my campaign and I went through alot of trouble as a "candidate for President " that had "standing" and proven "direct harm" in a case, we felt justice did not prevail. If there is anything we can do to help you please let us know. If you need an Amicus or testimony in any way shape or form please feel free to call on me. Thank you for your work and great defense for our U.S. Constitution! Your Brother in Freedom and Liberty Cody Robert Judy www.codyjudy.us 801-497-6655 [email protected] 6

6.Plaintiff does not assert or expect the Courts power to over reach on a Legislative Duty of removal of office due to an unqualified candidate. This court is humbly requested to interpret the simple definition of the ‘ Natural Born Citizen’ clause of the U.S. Constitution to justify and appropriate or negate the Plaintiff’s claim for relief against the Defendant. The residual power of discrete and insular minorities to protect not only their own Constitutional rights but to assert the Constitutional rights of all the people, is one of the great And perennially recurring Constitutional Conundrums in American legal history (cf United States v. Caroline Products Co.,304 U.S. 144, footnote 4 ‘the most famous footnote in history’) Plaintiff is a Natural Born United States Citizen and Candidate of the 2008 Presidential Election, and a discreet and insular minority who demands full enforcement and respect, by the authority of the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment preserving rights to the people, of the Constitutional clause of Article II of the Constitution stating, “No person except a Natural Born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”. The secondary statement of this clause concludes the Founders of the Constitution were subject citizens of Britain, and in understanding this and their own non-natural born citizenship either by soil and by parental ancestry, placed an exception in the clause for their own individual circumstances “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”: The significant note being the missing “Natural Born” clause from “Citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. Defendant is not a qualified candidate person for either the first part of the clause Natural Born Citizen, or a qualified candidate person for the second part of the clause “Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”.

7

7. Though petition Judy v. McCain case no. 2:08-cv-01162 submitted an “emergency exhibit of evidence” containing a co-complaint certiorari against Barrack Obama at that time under the U.S. Supreme Court consideration, Barrack Obama was not named in that complaint as a Defendant, mostly because McCain at that time offered a more direct threat to attract more of the conservative type voters of which Plaintiff’s platform revolved and for which he was vying and it is important to note that complaint was filed days before McCain was named the Republican nominee and served upon the National Republican Executive Chairs. In the preponderance of winning, had the Judge in Judy v. McCain made a summary judgment on the constitutional question of qualification the resulting impact would have altered the race at the pre-convention nominee mark of the presidential contest when all parties were equal in not being on the ballot, and in probabilities would have altered the entire 2008 election results as sure as any equation probability is altered with numbers. On the flip-side of the argument, which states altering the equation numbers of an election would equal the same sum falls into illogical and unreasonable non-sense and begets the question, “ Why have an election?”, or “What is an election if the same sum or outcome is unavoidable?” The considered answered being of course an elaborate tyranny.

8. For the courts consideration, Plaintiff will briefly consider the natural born citizen deficiencies of both Barrack Hussein Obama and John McCain in contemplation of the standard of the Constitution equally and without prejudice towards any particular person, understanding the combined total of the argument presents a total of near 97% of the vote for Obama and McCain and rather 3% who are not considered taken in fraudulently with their vote for an unqualified candidate. While there may be an argument to the Plaintiff not rummaging many votes, an active 3% of the population actually fought in the Revolutionary War and the success was seen. Correspondingly, Plaintiff is among other candidates in the minority percentage on this issue not to be dissuaded on the Constitutional Standard applied Allen Keyes being one of them. Plaintiff 8

makes this annotation to rescue the fact that just because the 2nd place finisher of the race didn’t bring the complaint to the court, does not mean the interpretation of the Natural Born Citizenship clause of the Constitution of the Republic, not of the Democracy, should carry less weight, especially considering the 2nd place finisher is shown by Plaintiff to be just as much in question on the Constitutional Soundness of the Natural Born Citizen clause, as the 1st place finisher. If it wasn’t so, why would a special un-constitutional non-binding resolution of the Senate known as Senate Resolution 511 even have been necessary, and supported by 2 of the major candidates of the opposing party, one of which ended up a declared winner? Senator Barrack Hussein Obama.

9. Plaintiff is in a unique position of having “standing” as a candidate of the Presidential race bringing more of a burden to him than any particular citizen bringing the constitutional claim to the court, including any U.S. Senators, U.S. Congressmen, any of the 50 State Governors or Big City Mayors, famous retired Judges and attorneys who by law all are regulated to the same status as any other citizen not having standing in the presidential race of 2008. Furthermore, the general thought on military standing has also been frowned upon by the Court as having ‘standing’ in cases found in California, Texas and Georgia finding men and women owing to their oaths to support and defend the Constitution under mixed emotions to question in that duty the qualifications of the Commander In Chief of the military rendering severe punishments for dereliction of duty for the conscientious objector regardless of rank from private to major general. The unique position of the Plaintiff may be argued upon his discretionary background which also is a disruption of the majority, but rather uniquely found it’s way into the emblems of Constitutional protection of the 13th Amendment, Sect 1 in 1865, making neither prior slavery nor prior involuntary servitude a past which prohibited a run for Federal office. Furthermore the Plaintiff cites standing authority of Morrison v. Olson from 1988, Bowsher v. Synar from 1988, Flast v. Cohen from 1968 and in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller which states ordinary 9

citizens of the United States have the right to enforce the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic. 10. Smith v. Allwright 321 U.S. 649 (1944) undertaken by the United States Supreme Court was, is an action by a national political party “governmental action” for purposes of enforcing Article II and Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution? The Court in Smith v. Allwright, examined whether the action of the political party was a state action or private action. It was determined that since primaries were conducted by the party under statutory authority, the party was an agency of the state insofar as it determined the participants in the primary election. The party took it’s character as a state agency from the duties imposed on it by the state statutes, and the duties did not become matters of private law, simply because they were performed by a political party. Lending credit to the fact that Department of Justice is miserable in its conduct towards Barrack Hussein Obama in: a. .Representing private individuals who are a candidate, or who maybe in office in a false representation of qualification for that office. b. Representing and individual who ought to be under investigation of the case of material action of fraud, by sworn false statement of material fact perpetrated upon Plaintiff as a candidate, and all U.S. Citizens, causing a misleading degree of thought of eligibility while in the process of casting their ballot for the Presidential elections of 2008.

10

REVIEW U.S. SOURCE OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DEFINED 11. Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare and adjudge what the framers of the constitution used, and that this Court must therefore apply in this case of first impression, the definition of the Natural Born Citizen contained in “The Law of Nations or, Principles of the Law of Nature, applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns” by the Swiss philosopher and jurist Emmerich De Vattel: “…natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owns to its own preservation: and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will only be the place of his birth, and not his country”. 12.

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/: The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

a.

This Court should apply the De Vattel definition used by the framers of the constitution,

11

defining “Natural Born Citizen” for following reasons: b.

De Vattel’s treatise existed at the time of the creation of the Constitution, as it was

published in 1757 and was readily available to the framers c.

Emmerich de Vattel’s was widely quoted by the framers of the constitution, for example,

by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison “Publius” in the Federalist Papers. d.

His book provides an exact and contemporaneous definition for the term used “Natural

Born Citizen” e.

De Vattel fully corresponds to the well-known statements by the framers of the

Constitution f.

The Vattel definition was used as a basis for the non-binding Senate resolution 511 of

2008. g.

Apparently during the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote on July 25, 1787 to

George Washington:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise or reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of National government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American Army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen” h. In explaining the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, a principal framer of the 14th amendment, which redefined citizenship under the Constitution, John Armor Bingham explained that the phrase referred to “every human being born in the jurisdiction of the United States (not controlled to territories) and parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”

12

meaning at least mother and father were “naturalized citizens” received in the process of emigration. (Emphasis added).

13

14

EXAMINATION OF CANDIDATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN FAILURES

JOHN SINDEY McCAIN, III OF SOIL 13. Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship

Gabriel J. Chin University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law; University of Arizona School of Public Administration and Policy Michigan Law Review First Impressions, Vol. 107, No. 1, 2008 Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-14 Abstract: Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. The Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but it was not incorporated into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain's campaign, distinguished constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson examined the law and issued a detailed opinion offering two reasons that Senator McCain was a natural born citizen. Neither is sound under current law. The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born . . . in the United States." However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held that "unincorporated territories" were not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold

15

that persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens. The Tribe-Olson Opinion also suggests that Senator McCain obtained citizenship by statute. However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship, but eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a "natural born Citizen" and thus is not "eligible to the Office of President" under the Constitution. a.

Argument that McCain's military service excludes heirs from place of

birth is contrary to the purpose seen as the ‘soil’ argument by the Founders intent and poses more of an example of 'poor parent planning' in the instance of a military man's wife not being able to get to U.S. Soil because she was on leave as if she was drafted into the military. There are millions of people serving in our military who cannot run for President because they are not 'natural born citizens', yet it is no reflection on their service and no insult that they cannot run for President. I suspect the Constitution is in their minds regarding their oaths, rather than the 1 in 100 million who perhaps might have an heir who wants to be President. Plaintiff’s considered advice, “get your wife to U.S. Soil to give birth if that's an issue for you”. Principle of the 'natural born citizen' clause of the Constitution should not be vacated for the 1 in 100 million who chooses to keep his wife on leave with him rather than sending her to U.S. Soil, neither was the clause’s intent by the Founders imprinted for such a frivolous argument shown discussed by Congress as recently as 2000. (See # 37 Defeated Amendmt ).

16

14.

And as otherwise represented in District of Nevada, Las Vegas, Judy v. McCain

Case No. 2:08-cv-01162 15.

As related Non-binding Senate Resolution 511 Resolved, That John Sidney

McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States,” declares the resolution co-authored by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. The sponsors include both Democrats vying to be Mr. McCain’s opponent, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, as well as Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. Of course, the authors acknowledge the resolution would have little real influence were the matter of Mr. McCain’s eligibility hanging by a legal thread. If there was indeed a question why would a Non-binding Senate Resolution even be necessary? This certainly does not work to run around the Constitution nor propose a new way to Amend the Constitution. JOHN SIDNEY McCAIN, III OF PARENTAGE 16.

http://proliberty.com/observer/20080624.htm June 2008

a.Excerpt 1 “From the beginning, the story of JS McCain III’s birth is suspect. The argument that he is not qualified to be president because he was not born on sovereign U.S. territory has merit. Additionally, as this research reveals, both of his parents may have been foreign nationals and the same controversies surround the true identities of JS McCain I and JS McCain II—his "grandfather" and "father." Recall that no substantial records exist for any legitimate "McCain" lineage outside of biographical accounts, though the records for a "McCann" lineage have been proven beyond a 17

reasonable doubt via the discovery and cross-referencing and examination of shipping manifests, crew’s lists, and military records. Both the "McCains" and the "McCanns" lied about who they are/were, and any admissions or denials by them are suspect and should be subjected to objective scrutiny. The birth records of the "McCanns" in Scotland are also fictitious.The birth and marriage records of Katherine Davey Vaulx (wife of JS McCain I), Roberta Wright (wife of JS McCain II) and Rowena Wright (Roberta’s twin sister) are equally suspect. The "Wright" clan is fictitious—birth, marriage, death and Social Security records of Archibald Wright, Myrtle Fletcher and John Luther Maddox being virtually nonexistent.” b. Excerpt 2 “The "feel-good stories" about the "McCain" family of military "heroes" portray the very elements of brainwashing born out of the Tavistock Institute in London, England. Tavistock, formerly Wellington House, was funded by the British monarchy and the Rockefeller banking dynasty to advance the science of mass brainwashing and mind control. What reasoning justifies such promotion to the rank of admiral? The only logical explanation is that King Edward VII and his son George V, the half-brother of "John McCann," were pulling the strings of the American government from 1860-1936. The plot was hatched and facilitated during Prince Albert Edward’s visit to Canada and the U.S. in 1860 (see part 1), before being implemented in 1892 and continued, at least, to the conclusion of George V’s reign as "kingemperor" on January 20, 1936. George’s reign also experienced a rise in socialism, fascism and Irish republicanism. And it was George V who hid the origins of the British royal family by changing his family’s German name, "Battenberg" to "Mountbatten" upon his creation of the "House of Windsor." Three U.S. presidents were assassinated after Albert Edward’s visit in 1860: Abraham Lincoln, 1865; James A. Garfield, 1881; and William McKinley, 1901 (Prince Albert Edward was crowned King of England on January 22, 1901). McKinley’s death opened the door to the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, whose son was complicit in secreting the "McCann-McCain" clan into the U.S. via his United States and Roosevelt Lines and then the U.S. Navy”

c.Excerpt 3 “The birth records from the Panama Department of Health do not contain the name of John Sidney McCain, III. Those records (in book form) are retained by the National Archives. The omission cannot be dismissed as a simple, bureaucratic "snafu" for several reasons. The U.S. Naval Hospital at Coco Solo, Panama, could not have been the "birthplace" of JS McCain III, who was purportedly born in 1936. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s "Executive Order 8981 Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, Canal Zone," was signed December 17, 1941. It authorized the 18

creation of the base hospital boundaries entitled, "Boundary Map of Navy Hospital Area, Coco Solo, Canal Zone." The land surveys for the hospital construction had been completed in May, 1941, nearly five years after the birth of JS McCain III. The base had no hospital in 1936, so McCain could not have been born on U.S. sovereign territory, even if the base was leased.” “So, where was JS McCain III born? Who were his parents? Who were his grandparents? Who were his great grandparents? A sufficient lack of evidence proves that four generations of "McCains" cannot prove that they are McCains. The evidence shows that JS McCain III, through his father and grandfather, is directly connected to the British Crown via Prince Albert/Edward VII. Historical accounts about Edward VII and his sons, Albert Victor, who himself was involved in a case of ‘Illegitimacy’, and George Fredrick Ernest Albert (George V) included the recurring descriptions of "inferior scholastic ability" and "little or no interest in learning." Both sons were enrolled in the Royal Navy. The same traits were mirrored by all three generations of the "McCain" family.” “John McCain is correct in claiming "bloodlines traceable to British royalty," but he is incorrect in his account of how that happened.”

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA OF SOIL

17.

No record exist of the place of Barack Hussein Obama’s place of birth ie.,

“long form birth certificate”. It should be noted that Certificates of Live Birth have been posted via internet, is not proof of the long form birth certificate which has never been produced confirming date and time, doctor, place, hospital, weight, and height of the baby and Barack Hussein Obama certainly cannot remember his own birth. It is also noted that Barack Obama has ordered every record accessible to the public towards his past and origin sealed. The State of Hawaii has in its code a peculiar statute #338, that allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificates. Additionally, such birth certificates can be

19

obtained based on a statement of one relative only, without any unbiased, independent evidence, such as a hospital birth certificate. This statute has a basis in precursor statutes going back to 1911, prior to creation of the state of Hawaii, as Hawaiian citizens wanted to transfer their Hawaiian citizenship to their children born abroad. 18.

As Hawaii became one of the states in the Union, this provision was kept. Most

American citizens, had no knowledge of this provision, in 2008 election. One of the reasons, was unwillingness of the Main Stream Media to talk about this issue. As demands were made to obtain such records, those demands were rebuffed and responses were provided, that only relatives or parties with tangible interest could obtain a copy of one’s birth certificate. The following is an example of what Obama offered himself on his fightthesmears.com web site.

20

19.

20. Circumstantial evidence however has reported Barack Hussein Obama being born in Kenya in 2004.

21

21. This is a Certificate of birth from the Coast Province General Hospital recording Barack Hussein Obama’s birth in Kenya with much more information on it. Barack Hussein Obama has never released any record from the Hawaii known as a long form birth certificate.

Kenyan Birth Certificate that surfaced of Barack Obama in 2009 22

22. Random example of a ‘state of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth confirming State of birth regarding Native Born or Soil confirmation.

State of Hawaii example of Certificate of Live birth and information on it.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA OF PARENTAGE 23.

Barack Obama's father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of

the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British 23

Citizen "at birth", just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be President. 24.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens. This

provides the reasons why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not "natural born Citizens". The inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution crafted enumerates upon this: a.

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; 25.

The Framers needing to make themselves eligible for President didn't want future

generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had divided loyalty to another Country. While the Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as "natural born Citizens", they wrote the grandfather clause (which no one living today qualifies under) in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the new nation declared the United States of America. 26.

The Framers distinguished between "natural born Citizens" and "Citizens". Clearly

noted in 14th Amendment terminology of "Citizen", not "natural born Citizen". The Framers were Citizens, but they weren't natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution thus creating a separation of trust for POTUS. 27.

Obama states he was born, in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. His mother was an American

woman, Stanley Ann Dunham, and his father was Barack Hussein Obama Sr. – a citizen of the 24

United Kingdom and Colonies born in Kenya, which was still a British colony. Obama Sr. was in the United States on a college scholarship and was neither a citizen nor a permanent resident of the United States. Because of the citizenship status of his father, Obama Jr. was governed by British citizenship laws at the time of his birth. The law that governed Obama Sr. and his children was the British Nationality Act of 1948. It stated the following: “a.—(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject. b.“(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression ‘British subject’ and the expression ‘Commonwealth citizen’ shall have the same meaning.” c. Barack Obama Sr. as a British citizen and subject to the laws of the British Nationality Act (BNA). The following sections establish that Obama Jr. was subject to the same laws at birth: d.“. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth.” e.“ (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” 25

f.

He was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies on August 4, 1961. If he was

in fact born in the United States, then it is possible that he acquired both United States and British citizenship. If he was born in Kenya, as long as their father was previously a British citizen born in Kenya: g.

“. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of

the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963… h

“. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a

citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.” i.

Barack Obama Jr. was a British citizen at birth and a Kenyan citizen by virtue of the

adoption of the Kenya Constitution. At age 23, he lost his Kenyan citizenship if he did not renounce his British or United States citizenship, take the oath of allegiance to Kenya, and declare his intentions of residence in the country. However, at no point did he automatically lose his British citizenship. j.

In the British Nationality Act of 1981, all previous citizens of the United Kingdom and

Colonies became “British Dependent Territories” citizens. This term was later amended to “British overseas territories” citizen. k.

“ Citizens of U.K. and Colonies who are to become British overseas territories citizens

at commencement. 26

l.

“(1) A person shall at commencement become a British overseas territories citizen if– (a) immediately before commencement he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had that citizenship by his birth, naturalization or registration in a British overseas territory; or (b) he was immediately before commencement a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and was born to a parent— (i) who at the time of the birth (‘the material time’) was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and (ii) who either had that citizenship at the material time by his birth, naturalization or registration in a British overseas territory or was himself born to a parent who at the time of that birth so had that citizenship.”

m.

In 1981, Obama became a British overseas territories citizen by virtue of the latest BNA,

which was amended by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002. n. o.

British overseas territories citizenship “(1) Pursuant to section 1, British Dependent Territories citizenship is renamed ‘British

overseas territories citizenship’; and a person having that citizenship is a ‘British overseas territories citizen.’” p.

As Obama’s East African father owed (by reason of his birth and as a matter of

international law) allegiance to British crown (whether or not he professed any), Obama was not a Natural born citizen and does not qualify for presidency. Dual Nationality is a rather new concept that did not exist at the time of creation of the Constitution and Plaintiff submit that the

27

definition used and the contemporaneous statements of the framers show a desire to exclude from the group of Natural Born Citizens anyone, with any allegiance to other sovereignties at birth wither by soil or parentage from either parent.

2 FORMS OF DEMOCRAT CERTIFICATION OF NOMINEE

28.

The Constitutions commitment to the Electoral College regarding the responsibility to

select the President does not include the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified outside the parameters of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution. Rather, the Electoral College relies upon the National Party Executive Committees for the examination of a candidates qualifications for office from which the declared nomination of said Party cause in writing their favored nominee to be printed on the ballot of every state by sending to each State respectively the nomination certificate which states the candidate is qualified. Williams v. Rhodes 393 U.S. 23,43,89 S. Ct 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968) (Harlan J. concurring) (“The [Electoral] College was created to permit the most knowledgeable members of the community to choose the executive of a nation.”). Thus the Democrat National Committee Members are seen as Defendants in this case as two different versions of the Certification of Nomination have been recovered. The easiest way to see the two are signed by the same people but in fact are two different documents is by looking at the portion where the line of the signatures start with the respective signature. The actions of these Defendants helped perpetrate the unconstitutional qualifications of the candidate to a higher level within the election race and thus bear the burden of substantiating an invasion of a legally protected interest towards the plaintiff in his qualification as a Natural Born Citizen candidate. These deprivations were committed by 28

Defendants who were acting under color of state law and therefore are liable for their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C § 1983. 29.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

September 9th,2009 (excerpts of a-x) a. “However, this document was never delivered to a single state DNC Office for state certification, and it was therefore, never presented to any state Election Commission as certification of these candidates, although I do have a copy of this notarized document myself. (Seen below in Paragraph #29) b. Instead, a very similar document was delivered to fifty state DNC offices, which those offices certified to each of fifty state Election Commissions, who then date-stamped the document and stuck it in a file cabinet, and proceeded to place these "certified" candidates on the ballot. c. The "Official Certification of Nomination" that was presented by the DNC in all fifty states for the 2008 Presidential election, in which Barack Hussein Obama became the new President of the United States, was almost identical, and it too was signed by Chair of the DNC Convention and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond and Notary of Public Shalifa A. Williamson, dated August 28, 2008 d. But this version of the document was missing the following text, and I quote; e. "- and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution." f. The legal certification text on the DNC certified nomination document used for the DNC ticket was limited to, and I quote; g. "THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively: (Seen below in Paragraph #31) h. Oops, another typo? The reference to Obama's constitutional eligibility was missing... An accidental omission? i. The text certifying that Barack Hussein Obama was "legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution" had been removed from the document sent to the states. And yes, I have a copy of this version of the DNC Official Certification of Nomination letter too!

29

j. In fact, this version is in Election Commission files of all fifty state Election Commission offices, state DNC headquarters, complete with date stamps, matching signatures, even the same Notary of Public authentication, and absent the constitutional text. k. Just in case you are wondering, the answer is yes. This version also includes the same typo present in the version not submitted by the DNC, but including the constitutional text, which means both documents have the same place of origin. l. The individual at DNC headquarters who prepared this very important document was not only a poor typist... they were sloppy enough to leave both versions of the signed documents lying around. m. The Implications n. Please, allow me to connect the dots here... o. The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not one. p. One of those documents had complete legal language, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama. q. The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of President is the version that was filed with every state in the country, and the one used by the DNC to elect Barack Obama President. r. Oh, there is one more important document in this story. s. The RNC "Official Certification of Nomination" for John McCain and Sarah Palin reads, and I quote: (Seen below in Paragraph 32.) t. "We do hereby certify that a national convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the city of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the Unites States, were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008, viz;"”

30

30. DNC Certificatation of Nomination stating “ following candidates legally qualified under provisions of the United States Constitution”. This one was used in Hawaii requiring the language.

31

31. This one omits qualifications to serve under U.S.C and simply states ‘duly nominated as candidates of said Party.” And this is the one which was sent to get Barack Hussein Obama on the ballot in most States.

32

32. The Republican Certificate of Nomination for John McCain showing “meeting the constitutional requirements” language.

The certification of constitutional eligibility is there in the RNC Certification of Nomination presented to the state Election Commissions. It's there in the document which the DNC had prepared, signed and notarized, but did NOT deliver to the states.

33

u. But it is NOT there in the DNC Certification of Nomination that the DNC used to certify and elect Barack Hussein Obama President and Joseph Biden Vice President of the United States of America. v. Last, the fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was underway, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful. w. Are you still wondering why Barack Obama has spent nearly $1.5 million in taxpayer's funds to race Department of Justice lawyers around the country to stop all cases questioning Obama's eligibility before discovery can force Obama to open up his top secret life? x. Last, this story confirms that some form of a conspiracy to mislead and ultimately defraud voters took place at the top of the Democrat Party. No story in recent history is of greater gravity.

CAUSE OF ACTION The Equality of Candidates Standard

33.

Plaintiff alleges that his/my constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities have been

violated and that the following facts form the basis for my allegations from Obama’s own endorsed website we see the term of citizenship used: “Native Citizen”: this is not a “Natural Born Citizen” but a term used to describe one who is born in the United States to parents 1 or more who are not U.S. Citizens strictly prohibited by the standard of Natural Born Citizen within the context of the U.S. Constitution. Barack Hussein Obama being an alleged and self admitted “native citizen” is a self admission of not being a Natural born citizens for which term would be proper by any qualified candidate running for the office of the President with the slightest clue of qualifications. http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html (obtained Nov.1st,2009) 34

34. Barack Hussein Obama’s ‘fight the smears” website claims Mr. Obama is a “native born citizen , not a ‘natural born citizen’.

Smears claiming Barack Obama doesnʼt have a birth certificate arenʼt actually about that piece of paper — theyʼre about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen. The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America. Next time someone talks about Barackʼs birth certificate, make sure they see this page.

35.

Barack Hussein Obama’s running for president, was/is an “election qualified candidate

competitive unfairness” to Cody Robert Judy, herein the Plaintiff, who is a “natural born citizen” and meets the U.S. Constitutional qualifications as a “natural born citizen” to run for the office of President according to U.S. Constitutional law, born in Idaho Falls, Idaho to two parents who are citizens. Father- Robert O. Judy born Idaho Falls, Idaho and Mother- Ali (Jeppson) Judy born Salt Lake City, Utah. While further review of eligibility of the sitting President may rest with Congress, it is within the Courts power and indeed obligation to review the Plaintiff’s Qualification Tort claim between two persons. While the 20th Amendment gives Congress the task of selecting a President when a President is found elected by the Electoral College but not satisfying the Constitutions eligibility qualifications, the language is not specific as to the source

35

or way by which a candidate is found ineligible, and certainly does not prohibit the Courts consideration between two parties. Furthermore the20th Amendment has no time frame in which a President can be found ineligible and the standing committees of the House and Senate while set up to hear questions regarding the presidential elections, they are not preferred for tort claims within Constitutional contentions between parties but handle broad questions of general natures about presidential elections. a. Mr. Obama has spent money to run for the Presidential race. b. Mr. Judy has also spent money to run for the Presidential race. i.)

Mr. Obama is prohibited from competition unfairness similar to allegations that China’s gold medalist gymnastic team members may have been too young to compete in the Olympics compared to qualifications of other world teams like Americans. The age is set at 16 and older for a reason. Younger gymnast may have an advantage on flexibility and be smaller in stature to perform movements easier or perhaps an athlete who has taken performance enhancing drugs. The election is similar to a contest between parties and the qualification of said parties applies to “square” the race.

ii.)

There have been no U.S. Constitutional Amendments guaranteeing a “naturalized citizen” or “native born citizens” ability to run for U.S. President but there is a “natural born citizen” requirement in the Constitution which is a requirement of which Plaintiff states a claim of which relief can be granted. 36

iii.)

The “non-binding” resolution of the United States Senate declaring John McCain eligible smacks in the face of Constitutional Law and is deplorable by U.S. Senators charged in defending Constitutional merits in a longer 6 year term then counterpart U.S. Congress, and is certainly half hearted to the steps of a Constitutional Amendment that must necessitate such an incredible departure from the current U.S. Constitutional provisional principle, which was co-sponsored by Barack Hussein Obama. The Congress was not consulted- this left out half of the legislative branch of government, and certainly represents no plea to the Judicial Branch for interpretation.

1.

As a citizen and a candidate, the Plaintiff is affectively guaranteed all the rights and

privileges enamored in the U.S. Constitution, and has standing. The injury of Mr. Obama’s ineligibility as President towards the Plaintiff is seen as a disruption of said rights, threatens the plaintiff’s liberty and independency as a citizen and did as a candidate, as the United States’ standard of the U.S. Constitution preserves individual rights identifying a boundary of just social interactions, in the presence or absence of government. In a pure form, to reward the Defendant no responsibility for the Plaintiff’s claims is to deny Plaintiff all of his Constitutional Rights and indeed deny him his unique qualification as a natural born citizen. a- As Mr. Obama is in fact acting as President, wither just or unjust, the U.S. Constitutional law of “natural born citizen” has been defected upon plaintiff. This is

37

not about “second class citizenship”, but rather honoring the law until such time as the law is revoked and or amended. As Plaintiff assumes natural nationality of America, depends on protection, rights secured, for his independence and liberty, through the standard of the U.S. Constitution, the threat of violence by aversion to the standard of constitutional principles, is reprehensible, as is actual violence though the penalty for such “threats” may be lighter than “actual” violence. Mr. Obama’s run for the Presidency did constitutes a “threat” of violence to the U.S. Constitution towards Plaintiff, if now Mr. Obama is elected it does constitute “actual” violence to the U.S. Constitution and so has harmed the Plaintiff accordingly. b- In the Declaration of Independence which constituted an action of Second Continental Congress, July 4th,1776 it is related “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of the Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.” c- If the issue of NBC is non-justiable, and the whole of the American public were seen as ‘taken’ in the election, the example of our Republic and in fact Democracy around the world in elections contrived as fair would altogether cease from the world. The

38

United States as a beacon of light for freedom and liberty must forever strive to eradicate the nefarious contempt for law the consorts of tyranny and oppression offer. BRIEF RECORD OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS FOR DEFEATED AMENDMENT

67–306

37.

2000 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.J.Res. 88 JULY 24, 2000 Serial No. 108 38.

Excerpt 1

''. . . it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States''—thus writes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No.68. Indeed, the ''chief magistrate'' who is also Commander-in-Chief has to grow from the soil. 39.

Excerpt 2

a. I came to this Country in 1959, and became a citizen in 1964. During my formative years in Hungary, I read as much American literature as American students might have in the high schools of yore. In my second year of residence, I married a native-born American, and henceforth spoke English exclusively in my home. Before and after taking the oath of citizenship, I have made continuous and extensive efforts to become American, not only in the administrative sense of the word. In the course of my life, spent mostly as a performing artist and academic, I had the opportunity to start a small corporation and run for elective office—both of which are indispensable for the comprehension of America. b. My interest in, and commitment to, the principles upon which this Nation was founded prompted me to establish a small Think Tank—called Center for the American Founding—that connects today's issues with those principles. I write a regular column, and have published a book about American political philosophy. My fellow Americans honor me frequently in word and deed very much as one of 39

their own. c. Yet, Mr. Chairman, I wish to state unequivocally that, despite all of the above, I would not consider myself eligible to the office of president of the United States. d. The people of this land are possessed of a unique brand of tolerance, a balanced temperament, and a natural goodwill toward the world. While such persons may be found everywhere, they constitute an overwhelming majority among Americans. One of the inexplicable miracles of America is the transformation that occurs within one generation, no matter how different the customs and mores of the new arrivals.

39.

Excerpt 3

In addition, liberty is not simply a blessing guaranteed by the Constitution, but an inner state of being, again separating Americans from most others. An overwhelming majority of immigrants arrive on these shores looking, as they had always done, to government as a source of benefits, and an authority to obey. 40.

Excerpt 4

Those who favor the proposed amendment will no doubt point to exceptional persons of their acquaintance who, in their view, would fulfill any and all expectations with regard to the office of president, though being of foreign birth. Yet the laws of this country never have been written with the exceptions in mind. Among other things, the Framers of the Constitution distinguished themselves by writing few laws, and employing language at once broad and concise, so as to be applicable to all circumstances at all times 41.

Excerpt 5

a. The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak presidency, but the office has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of presidential authority that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable (despite the War Powers Act and similar efforts) is the president's power as commander in chief. Can that power be safely entrusted to a foreign-born citizen? John Jay didn't think so; nor do I; nor I suspect do the vast majority of Americans. b. Let us consider a few scenarios. Start with an extreme example. The espionage agencies of a number of countries, doubtless including the United States, have sometimes employed what in the spy novel is called an agent under deep cover. A young person is thoroughly trained and indoctrinated before being sent to an enemy country, where he or she becomes a citizen and an exemplar of respectable behavior. This goes on for years, even decades, until the parent agency determines that it is time to activate the agent. It is not difficult to imagine such a person obtaining an office of great trust. But a Senator is one of 100, and a 40

Representative is one of 435. What check is there on the president who is one of one, except for the constitutional restriction?

c. Should that seem too remote a possibility, consider a more likely case. A person comes to America from country ''X'' as a young man, takes out citizenship, become thoroughly Americanized, and is as loyal to his adopted country as can be. Nonetheless, in dealing with his original country he is bound to be influenced by his nativity, whether in the form of hostility or favoritism. Even should he prove able to rise above his prejudices and deal with the old country objectively, he would still be widely regarded as prejudiced, and the media would fan such suspicions. As commander in chief, it is not enough to be above reproach, one must be above the suspicion of reproach. d. Let me cite a more tangible example, one closer to recent experience. We all know a number of Cuban-Americans. They are loyal to our country, now their country too. They are pillars of their communities and are more fiercely patriotic than most natural born Americans. And yet, as the recent to-do over Elian Gonzalez demonstrated, few of them are able to regard Cuba dispassionately or treat relations with Castro's Cuba with equanimity. Suppose we had had a Cuban-born president in the White House at the time of the Gonzalez controversy. Would that president have been able to retain objectivity and, as importantly, any shred of credibility under the circumstances? e. In conclusion let me say that on this as on other constitutional questions, we are best guided by the wisdom and prudence of the Founding Fathers. The amendment process is not to be taken lightly, nor should it be used for political or electioneering purposes. The structure created by the Constitution has stood the test of time and continues to stand as the truest foundation for our freedom 42.

Excerpt 6

a. Mr. VAZSONYI. I would not only agree in general, I would also cite a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, I believe, in 1820, in which he says very clearly that all confidence must be in the American people, who are the only repositories of a safe future. b. But I also believe that political events can be influenced, and it is not unthinkable for a foreign power, especially for a foreign power, perhaps I am going to cite China, a country with an extremely long-term view of history, to arrange things perhaps on a 50-year plan to install someone on American soil and really hope to be able to run for that office and put the necessary strength behind it.

41

PREVIOUS LAW SUITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 43.

No other lawsuits in state or federal court that deal with the same facts that are involved in this

action or otherwise relate to the condition of this case have been filed by the plaintiff. 44.

2. Letter #1 Complaint to Utah Democrat Party

U.S. Senate Candidate Q ?‫‏‬ From:

cody judy ([email protected])

Sent: Wed 10/14/09 5:40 PM To:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

· [email protected] · [email protected] · [email protected] · [email protected] · [email protected] Dear Democratic Executive Committee: (excerpt) Within the body of the the Constitution, a most unique and exceptional criteria for the President of the United States is embedded in Article 2 Sect 1 requiring the President to be a "natural born citizen" (NBC). This criteria demands both parents be citizens of the U.S., of a candidate, and that the candidate be born within the United States of which I am. For this reason I endeavored in a law suit Cody Judy v. John McCain and the Republican National Committee , which was served 2 days prior to John McCain's nomination by the Republican Party as a nominee for President in 2008. This action I was uniquely qualified for as a Presidential Candidate with "standing", and I was the ONLY candidate willing to take on the issue against John McCain. The case was not decided on the merits, but declared 'moot' after Obama won. While I have not filed suit against Mr. Obama, I have filed an Amicus Curiae with the court in 42

California which is challenging his candidacy qualification on two grounds of his "natural born citizenship" qualification: 1) His Parents who are not both U.S. Citizens- his Father known and admitted to be a British Citizen which divides Barrack Obama's heritage to natural born status. 2) His actual birth place is yet unproven with a long form birth certificate which indicates the hospital, attending Doctor, weight & height etc. and is not the document known as a COLB issued by Obama's campaign staff on fightthesmears.com, which anyone from any country can apply for within a year of a child's birth. All of these COLB's are sent to local papers for print in the newspapes also, so abscent Obama releasing all the doc's he had spent a ton of money hiding, I am standing on principle and sound law which amounts to consideration of parents combined with birth origin to seal the qualification as "NBC". I make no apologies for a defense of the United States Constitution and neither should any Party. I declare boldly that there is a ratification process for amendment to the Constitution available for anyone to pursue should they want it changed. However, in the interim, we as a Constitutional Republic, being Democrat, Republican, or Independent rally around this STANDARD OF LIBERTY, and it is that standard of which our Government Leaders are bound by their oaths to take a stand. This however and sadly, has not been the case with Utah's Senator Bennett as reported on my web site. He has repeatedly been written about the STANDARD and has repeatedly denied it, as well as actually placing on record to me his thoughts of laying aside the Constitution's sound doctrine, and certainly has lacked the courage to defend it by calling for a simple defense legislative Hearing of Qualification for Verification, which ultimately is the U.S. Att. General's defense claim in the Barnett v. Obama case, citing Legislative Responsibility. You also may know already of the two differant 'Certifications of Qualification' issued by the democratic leadership for Mr. Obama, that got his name on the ballot of each individual state, one certifying he was qualified per se to the Constitution, the other abruptly left out for most states. I declare if this house of cards goes down, the Utah Democratic Party could be in a neutral position in simply not condemning me as a candidate asserting a legal defense for the Constitutional Standards that is a standard for all Americans regardless of party affiliation. The assertion that every state is independent within the Union is relative to every State Democratic Party also being a little different than any other State Democratic Party as the scope and gene pool of the Party dictates different issues may play roles with varying degrees of importance to the particular region. For this reason I believe it is within the scope in the outlined parameter of important platform consideration, that I can be considered an effective Democrat Nominee for U.S. Senate. As it stands now neither U.S. Representative for Utah, in the U.S. Senate, has the courage to take a stand for the Constitution in this most important issue relevant to the direction of our country into a state of socialism a precursor to communism, in defiance of the Republic for which we stand. I believe every party has had good candidates at particular times. JFK had conservative principles for fiscal responsibility that would have been very 43

attractive to todays' Republicans. Truly, the platform of an individual can influence the direction of a Party, and as influences goes, a conservative independent democrat with the right formula could conceivably win the Utah

44.

3-Letter Complaint #2 to Utah Democrat Party

Considerations of Obama Q‫‏‬ From:

cody judy ([email protected])

Sent: Thu 10/15/09 4:02 AM

To:

ExecDemChair1 ([email protected]); ExecDemChair2 ([email protected]); ExecDemChair3 ([email protected]); ExecDemChair4 ([email protected]); ExecDemChair5 ([email protected]); ([email protected]); St.GPaper2 ([email protected])

Dear Utah Dem Executive Chairs;

Oct 14th,2008

For your consideration upon ...this house of cards which is about to blow away! I'd say it would be better to clean house then to have the house cleaned. This is Our Country we are talking about and loyalty to the Party and against the Constitution of the Republic starts to sound a little...well, treasonous. When authorities have information and fail to act upon it? 1- http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d14-BarackObama-and-State-of-Hawaii-on-the-ropes "This is a scandal and cover-up 100 times the size of Watergate. This time, it won’t be just a President resigning in disgrace, it will also be the DNC Leadership who will be under the criminal investigation microscope for the cover-up, and it is a scrutiny they cannot withstand. This is the reason Barack Obama is doing everything he can to keep people focused on the irrelevant issue of his birth certificate. He would rather people be thinking about where he was born rather than the citizenship that was conferred upon him by his British father. The smoke and mirrors have cleared. This is no longer a partisan issue, partisan issues are reserved for constitutional governments, which we do not have. There is only those who understand the peril we are in, and those who do not, and we are all Americans. Now, what are we going to do about it?" 44

Revealing that the media knew about his in 2004, but have been silenced about it in 2008 in the greatest fraud every played upon the American Public. 2- http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm "Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate 2004" Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.

3- Can you imagine the R's voting for Obama if they would have had this...starting about 5:11 ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lrf8DbrJH0

4- Don't forget the forms that CITIZENS gathered from across the US...They raise more questions about his eligibility because all but the one from Hawaii was sign without the line that he was eligible....The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don't Lie http://www.canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm

5- Original, vault copy birth certificate: Not released (attorney's fees are estimated to be up to about $2 MILLION now, instead of HI birth certificate fee of under $20 bucks) Certification of Live Birth: Released: Document Experts state it is a FORGERY http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/22/obamas_born_conspiracy_obamas_bogus_birth_cert ificate_exposed!.thtml Obama/Dunham marriage license: Not released (if one exists) Obama/Dunham divorce: Not released (discovered by independent investigators) Kindergarten records: Not released; School claims records are"LOST" Records lost (this is a big one -- see here -- read two frames) Soetoro/Dunham marriage license: Not released Soetoro adoption records: Not released Fransiskus Assisi School School application: Not released (discovered by independent investigators) Click here for proof/details. Punahou School records: Not released Soetoro/Dunham divorce: Not released (discovered by independent investigators) http://orlytaitzesq.com/drorlytaitzesq/documentation/SOETORODIVORCE.pdf 45

Selective Service Registration: Not released (Obtained via Freedom of information act request; received FORGERY?) http://orlytaitzesq.com/drorlytaitzesq/documentation/SSSGov.doc Occidental College records: Not released Passport: Not released, records scrubbed by Obama's terrorism and intelligence adviser. Possible to have U.S. Passport without providing birth certificate, click here for more details. Columbia College records: Not released Columbia thesis; "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"; Not released But an anti-war plan to disarm America article written by Obama was found; http://orlytaitzesq.com/drorlytaitzesq/documentation/obamaantimilitary.pdf Harvard College records: Not released Harvard Law Review articles: None Illinois Bar Records: Not released Illinois Driver's License Record: Not released (discovered by independent investigators) Click here for details. Baptism certificate: None Medical records: Not released 6-What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ? So, how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June, 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one. Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20? A: Yes, by his own admission. Q: What passport did he travel under? A: There are only three possibilities: 1) He traveled with a U.S. passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport. Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. passport in 1981 A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S.

46

State Department's "no travel" list in 1981. Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981, he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport. If he were traveling with a British passport, that would provide proof he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And, if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport, that would tend to prove he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967. Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008. Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better. 7- Amicus Curiae filed by Cody Robert Judy with pertinent information about a U.S. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN vs. A Citizen of the U.S. If you don't care if YOUR President is not a natural born citizen, perjured himself in his presidential certification process, resign your post, because this is America and we are a Constitutional Republic, and eveyone in every party must respect the Supreme Law of the Land, or invite chaos as your bed partner. Please pass this on to every Democrat State Authority you know.

Prior Court Decisions brought in Federal Court 45.

ELECTION LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE: Standing

47

3/27/08 Fred Hollander v. John McCain and the Republican National Committee Civil No. 08-cv-099-JNL, Opinion No. 2008 DNH 129* Based on the United States Constitution’s provision that only a "natural-born citizen" is eligible to be President of the United States, the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for the Presidency, is ineligible for that office due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing under his theories that (1) he had a legally cognizable interest in the constitutional eligibility of an elected official, (2) McCain’s participation in the New Hampshire Republican primary had made it more difficult for the plaintiff’s chosen candidate to win, and (3) if McCain were elected but were subsequently not allowed to hold the office due to his alleged ineligibility, the plaintiff would be "disenfranchised." 19 pages. Judge Joseph N. Laplante.

46.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518

Eligibility Case Archive Welcome WorldNetDaily and Drudge Report readers! You have reached my “Eligibility Case Archive” page. This is a listing of all defunct cases. To see a listing of currently pending cases that are publicly known at this time, please see my Eligibility Lawsuits page. Citizen Grand Jury Updates (older): • • • • • • • • • •

Grand Jury Memo Jury Update: Online Grand Jury Indicts Obama for Fraud, Treason Jury Update: Ft. Worth, TX Jury Forming; Citizen’s Organization Offers to Help; USAToday Publishes! Jury Update: American Grand Jury to Hear Evidence Soon Citizen Grand Jury: AGJ Reports 49 Member Requests, Swennson Found a Sheriff Citizen Jury Update: Illinois and Georgia GA: First Common Law National Grand Jury Convenes; Indictment Returned; ECR Interview WND: Citizens in 20 More States to Form Common Law Grand Juries New Site Speaks on Citizen Grand Jury Action in KY, OH, TN and IL; Update: GA Support for Jury, Taitz Leo Donofrio “Condemns” GA Common Law Grand Jury

48

•

Concerned Citizens Encouraged to Contact US Attorney Over Eligibility

Defunct Cases: • •

• •

• • • • • •

•

•

•

•

•

Patriot’s Heart v. Soetoro (09/10/09) o Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction California (Dr. Orly Taitz for Gail Lightfoot): (03/24/09) o Lightfoot v. Bowen Refiled o DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009. o Lightfoot v. Bowen Quo Warranto: (03/24/09) o Quo Warranto Filed at SCOTUS o Easterling v. Obama Pennsylvania: o (James Schneller): (06/22/09)  DISMISSED  Schneller v. Cortes California: o Alan Keyes: Keyes v. Bowen (06/15/09) o Keyes v Bowen Judgment Dismissing Costs Awarded Indiana: o Dismissed o Steve Ankeny, Bill Kruse: Ankeny v. Daniels (02/27/09) Mississippi: o Dismissed with prejudice o Daniel Scott Thomas: Thomas v. Hosemann (03/08/09) Kentucky: o Daniel John Essek: Essek v. Obama (02/18/09) o AmericaMustKnow history Washington State (James Broe): (02/02/09) o Dismissed without comment at the State level; Plaintiffs considering other options o Broe v. Reed Nevada (Cody Judy): (01/14/09) o Dismissed; “moot” o Included Berg v. Obama as Emergency Exhibit of Evidence o Judy v. McCain Texas (Darrel Hunter): (01/27/09) o DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED AND FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION o Hunter v. Obama Ohio (Gordon Stamper): (01/27/09) o Dismissed; “appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.” o Stamper v. US Texas: o Judge: “This Court has no Jurisdiction.“ o Jody Brockhausen: Brockhausen v. Andrade (01/23/09)  AmericaMustKnow history Pennsylvania (Phil Berg): (01/21/09) o January 16 Conference results: application for stay DENIED o January 9 Conference results:  January 12: Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson GRANTED.  January 12: Petition DENIED. o Berg v. Obama District of Columbia:

49

• •

• •

o L. Charles Cohen: Cohen v. Obama (12/30/08) Hawaii: o Dismissed; important forensic examiner affidavit! o Keyes v. Lingle (12/12/08) Connecticut (Cort Wrotnowski): (01/02/09) o “Pidgeon reminds us that the Wrotnowski case is still “pending” and procedurally alive.“ o DENIED application for stay and/or injuction o Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz New Jersey (Leo Donofrio): (12/08/08) o DENIED application of stay o Donofrio v. Wells Georgia: o DENIED o Rev. Tom Terry: Terry v. Handel (11/12/08)  AmericaMustKnow history

· Patriot Brigade Case history · California: David Archbold history · Virginia: Wild Bill history · New York: Dan Smith history · Washington: Steve Marquis history · Ohio: David Neal history; Carol Greenberg history

CONCLUSION 47.

Plaintiff concludes:

50

1.)

The Defendant is not a “Natural Born Citizen” and while he maybe native born

(remains unproven) he, however is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution as being “qualified” to be President of the United States as a ‘Native Born Citizen’.

2.)

The 14th Amendment was not written to change the rules of who could be the

President, it was to determine citizenship, not to alter the qualifications of “natural born citizen” qualification of President of the United States. Therefore the discrepancies between the Plaintiff and the Defendant have merit in the race, or election of 2008 and Plaintiff’s claims assumes the “natural born citizenship” clause is the predominate claim with which the Defendant has injured the Plaintiff with in the 2008 Presidential race.

3.)

There have been attempts to Amend the U.S. Constitution regarding “naturalized”

or native citizens becoming president, as recently as the year 2000, but they have failed in the legislative branch. Thus, the Congress has in fact mandated the will of the People in proceedings as recently as 2000 and determined that the ‘Natural Born Citizen” clause should be continued as a pillar in the Standard of the Constitution in the entirety from the time it was set in place by the Founders in American History. As Congress has made the laws and so did not amended the “Natural Born Citizen” clause, so this Court is appropriate to determine interpretation, as this complaint has outlined assuming the qualification of Natural Born Citizen as a prerequisite of qualification for President of the United States.

4.)

No U.S. Government Branch of legal binding authority has to date ruled upon the

issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility question. Barack Hussein Obama’s oath of

51

declaration of candidacy that he signed stating he believes he met requirements to the State Elections Clerk, in which his declaration was made, is a mistake of his honor and good conscience of defense of the U.S. Constitution especially as a former practiced or professional instructor of Constitutional Law.

5.)

That Barack Hussein Obama’s run for Presidency posed a constitutionally direct

illegal threat, a fair qualification declared an inequity between the parties, and a civil injustice threat and action to the Plaintiff, Cody Robert Judy’s bid for the Presidency of which merits a claim for injury.

6.)

Though hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into Barack Hussein

Obama’s campaign from donations of American Citizens across the United States, they have done so, in the “belief”, of only Barack Hussein Obama’s word and the recommendations of the Democrat Executive Committee Chairs also Defendants, as he signed his declaration of candidacy, stating he was eligible according to the U.S. Constitutional Requirements and they forwarded those to the respective States that allowed his name to be placed on the ballot of the 2008 election. This was a deceptive declaration that only courage for the U.S. Constitution will over rule in Constitutional light. Though hundreds of millions of dollars, years of campaigning, and all the efforts of Mr. Obama’s campaign might seem more weight then the Plaintiff’s humble $5,000, a web site, 8 commercials, and a staff smaller then the size of a classroom, that is not the comparison to assert. Rather how could hundreds of millions of dollars, years

52

of campaigning, and all the efforts of Obama’ staffers compare and possibly carry any weight in a document known as the U.S. Constitution, so valuable as to carry the weight of our whole economy, every citizens rights of freedom and independence since the birth of our nation, the character of every sacrifice for our nation in the bloody battlegrounds of U.S. history, and the defense that Plaintiff makes for Liberty and Independence of the United States? Barack Obama’s campaign is small issue to American History in Blood and Economic prosperity. I the plaintiff, Cody Robert Judy, am only one man, who is in this legal challenge. However the Standard for review is echoed by histories voices, hundreds of millions of voices and trillions of dollars of the past speaking out from the dust, the resonance of the present defenders of the Constitution marching on Washington DC like the gathering in Tea Party protest all over the nation , and the hope of our future whose voices we have not heard yet but whom we hope have a future in freedom and liberty and justice for all. These Constitutional Principles are yours and mine to hold and to cherish.

7) The “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the Constitution is in fact a two prong test. The two prong test assumed by Plaintiff to be a prerequisite qualification in order to run for President and as such also assumed to be President. The qualification to run is defaulted by a candidate who fails either one of the two prongs namely: a.

Born on United States soil

b.

Born to parents (both father and mother) who are United States Citizens.

The combination creates a ‘natural born citizen’ of which a base of loyalty, natural inclination and secure trust reside in both nature and nurture arguments of a prospective President of the United States. i. Barack Hussein Obama fails in at least 1 of the two prong test for qualification, and thus has injured the Plaintiff in the 2008 election race. The same point is seen in a Danish literary fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen (2 April 1805 – 4 August 1875) about an emperor swindled by two weavers who promise him a new suit of clothes 53

invisible to the stupid or to those unfit for their positions. The hoax is exposed by a child claiming “The emperor has no clothes”. In comparison, Mr Obama has no ‘Natural Born Citizen” qualification for President of the United States required by the U.S. Constitution. 8) With the election of 2008 the two major parties had candidates that were not Natural Born Citizens under the law at the time of their birth, the qualified standard by which the 2008 elections were held. This is not to say that the Standard could not be altered with a Constitutional Amendment, however we have shown Congress clearly set the record straight as recently as July of 2000, in defeating the standard to let foreign born citizens (or non-natural born citizens) run for President. This was clearly the criteria and qualification set in 2008 by U.S.C standards. If 3rd party candidates objecting to the major candidates are not allowed in standing and jurisdiction to defend the U.S.C. Standard, the court has affectively regulated the U.S. to a 2 party system which is a political bias and dis-incorporates the 3rd party standards as well as write-in standards of U.S. and States election laws respectively. Now this court has two Presidential Candidates in Plaintiffs in this action; Cody Robert Judy and Alan Keyes who were in fact in the Presidential contest who are seriously injured in equality of qualification to the Constitutional standard by the defacto winner Barack Hussein Obama and the defacto runner up John McCain, thus in the equality standard of balance the Court has equal contesting candidates to equal un-qualified candidates and to avoid the political prejudice must consider the “natural born citizen” standard by which the contesting candidates implore the court for merit of the petition.

54

INJURY 48.

The defendant(s) actions have injured the Plaintiff, Cody Robert Judy, in two ways 1- As a fellow candidate for President of the United States, I have spent a little over $5,000 dollars on my campaign for U.S. President and if Barack Hussein Obama won the race, but was indeed not qualified to run, my campaign would have not have suffered both the money and time spent on the campaign in the result of election 2008, and publicity, time, and money may have proven favorable for my candidacy and I may presume to have won in the process of the race and before nominees’ were chosen by Political Parties, more especially the Democrat Party to which I have been associated with in previous elections of 2002 U.S. Congress and 2004 U.S Senate. Barack Hussein Obama’s campaign, would have been apportioned apart to qualified candidates and that would be calculable in the divisions of interest and favor, not limited to “all of it” for my candidacy more especially had John McCain been knocked out of contentions with my claim of action against his ‘Natural Born Citizen’ qualification dismissed as “moot”, following Barack Hussein Obama’s win in the general election.

2- As a citizen of the United States I have been injured in the fell of the standard the U.S. Constitution employs and pray for its sustained equivalence in liberty and independence for my Nation and my home.

55

56

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR QUICK REFERENCE 1. Jurisdiction proper, parties, Federal Civil Action

pg. 1-3

2. Nature of the case

pg 6-10

3. Review U.S. source of natural born citizen defined

pg 11-13

4. Examination of Candidates NBC- John Sidney McCain of soil

pg 14-16

5. John Sidney McCain of parentage

pg 16-18

6. Barack Hussein Obama of soil

pg 18-22

7. Barack Hussein Obama of parentage

pg 22-27

8. 2 forms of Democrat certification of nominee

pg 27-33

9. Cause of Action-The Equality of Candidates Standard

pg 33-37

10. Brief excerpts of July 2000 Hearing before the 106th Congress Judiciary subcommittee on defeated Amendment to allow foreign born citizens to run for President.

pg 38-40

11. Previous law suits and administrative relief (two letters to Democrat Executive Committee both in state and national.

pg.41-46

12. Prior court decisions brought in Federal Court including all eligibility cases archived pg.47-49 13. Conclusion

pg. 51-53

14. Injury

pg. 54

15. Request for Relief

pg. 55

16. Declaration under penalty of perjury

pg. 55

17. Table of Contents for quick reference

pg. 56

18. Certificate of Mailing

pg. 57

19. Declaration of write-in candidacy

pg.58

57

Certification of mailing I hereby certify that I MAILED a true and correct copy of the following : “MOTION FOR PERMISSIVE JOINDER AND AMENDMENT TO THE (42 U.S.C. §1983 or §1985) CIVIL RIGHTS / FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMPLAINT BY ADDITIONAL CANDIDATE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2008 / WITH MOTION TO RECONSIDER/.”.

Postage prepaid, U.S. Mail, this 7th day of November,2009 to the following parties :

Mrs.Dr.ORLY TAITZ, Esq. (SBN 223433) 26302 La Paz MissionViejo Ca 92691 Telephone: (949) 683-5411 Facsimile: (949) 586-2082 [email protected]

And Mr.GEORGE S. CARDONA Acting United States Attorney Mr. LEON W. WEIDMAN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division Mr.ROGER E. WEST (State Bar No. 58609) Assistant United States AttorneyFirst Assistant Chief, Civil Division Mr.DAVID A. DeJUTE (State Bar No. 153527) Assistant United States Attorney Room 7516, Federal Building 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-2461/2574 Facsimile: (213) 894-7819 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Signed this 7th day of November, 2009 __________Original

/s/ { Cody Judy} on Hardcopies sent_______________ Cody Robert Judy

58

EXHIBIT A

59