___________ No. 12-5276 ___________

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

————

Cody Robert Judy, Petitioner,

v.

Barrack Obama Brian Kemp

Respondent(s)

————

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court for the Eleventh Circuit

————

PETITION FOR REHEARING OF

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

CODY ROBERT JUDYPro se Petitioner3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite 2 Ogden, UT. 84401www.codyjudy.us (801)497-6655codyjudy@hotmail.com

__________

MICHAEL JABLONSKI Counsel of Record for BARACK OBAMA 2221 Peachtree Rd. Suite D418 Atlanta, GA. 30309-1523 404- 290-2977 michael.jablonski@comcast.net

CAM-ANH LE Crt. Of State acting as Counsel of Record for BRIAN KEMP VINCENT ROBERT RUSSO Executive Office 214 State Capital Atlanta GA. 30334 cale@sos.ga.gov , vrusso@sos.ga.gov

DECLARATION OF CERTIFICATION

I, the Petitioner of Judy v. Obama 12-5276 do hereby Certify with my signature that

the foregoing and attached PETITION FOR REHEARING FOR A WRIT OF

CERTIORARI is presented to the best of my legal knowledge in good faith and is

not intended for delay, and is limited to substantial or controlling effect and to

other substantial grounds not previously presented.

Signature of Petitioner ______________________________

Sworn and attested to me in the County of ________________ for the State of

____________, on the day _______ of the month of ___________ , 2012.

Notary Signature: _______________________________

Notary Seal:

1.

STATED GROUNDS & INTERVENING CIRCUMSTANCES

BRIEF

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

submits pursuant Rule 44 this PETITION FOR REHEARING OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI

based upon the following grounds stated in Brief Summation and accompanied by a

Certificate stating the grounds are limited to intervening circumstances of

substantial or controlling effect and other substantial grounds:

1-Election- November 6th,2012 was an Intervening Circumstances of Substantial or

Controlling Effect

2-Procedural Mis-Handling of Petitioners Case Representing a Breach of Justice

3-Apposing precedent during the term of the action in varying areas of the Country

1-November 6th, 2012 Election - Intervening Circumstances of Substantial

or Controlling Effect

a. Petitioner, and his Presidential Campaign, has substantially suffered

more monetary damages then were attributed, before the election, in

the amount of 20 million dollars, due to Barack Obama’s not being

eligible, and votes of near half the Country being cast for him in the

Presidential Election, more than any other petitioner who lacked

‘competitive standing’ to the Court, with the same grievance on the

grounds that Barack Obama was not qualified per the Constitution as a

natural born citizen.

2.

b. The Presidential Election of 2012 was in fact an intervening

circumstance that took place taking votes away, as well constituting a final

result of damages due in the circumstance of the

election away from a qualified candidate in the Democratic Party, the results

of which lie at the courts feet, and not to any head or authority of the

Democratic Party due to the Constitutions qualification demands for the

Office of the President.

c. The lower Courts of this case were petitioned for relief but clumped

Petitioner in with other Petitioners who had not suffered any damages in

direct circumstances to the Primary Elections or now the General Election,

both of which consisted of quantified damages in their separate instances

and together combined in an escalation of total damages that resulted due to

the narrow but nevertheless strict demand of the Constitution’s qualification

holding for the Office of President.

d. Due to the election results and the processed norms of the entire

country for a natural born citizen in the office of the President, as of Nov.12,

2012 , twenty of the Union’s 50 States are in varying stages of received

petitions for succession of the Union due to the abrogation and dereliction

towards the Constitution and the Qualification of the Office of the President

threatening the entire countries safety and national security.

2-Procedural Mis-Handling of Petitioners Case Representing A

Breach of Justice

a. On July 1st, 2012-The Judy v. Obama Cert was filed with the Clerk with a

letter to the Clerk stating “Dear Mr. Judy- The above-entitled petition for a

writ of certiorari was received again on June 28th, 2012, and is herewith

returned for the reason stated in my letter May 17th,2012. Sincerely

William K. Suter, Clerk – By Gail Johnson” . Clerk Missed Docketing the

entire case.

3.b. On July 30th,2012- Petitioner submitted an EMERGENCY MOTION

governed by Court procedure July 30th,2012 also with a letter to the Clerk,

that was not posted as such by the Court Clerk on the docket, but rather

posted on the docket for all the Public to see as an addition or supplement

brief to the WRIT OF CERTIORARI, rather than an EMERGENCY MOTION

that took precedence over and above body of the case. Missing on the

Docket Report.

c. On September 6th ,2012- Petitioner CODY ROBERT JUDY submitted a

letter to Chief Justice John Roberts RECONSIDERATION: Standing Mixed

up in Conference Sep. 24th Judy v. Obama 12-5276 & Emergency

Motion not ruled upon violating Court procedure. This was not docketed

by the Court Clerks, and is nowhere to be seen on the Record Judy v.

Obama 12-5276.

3-Apposing precedent during the term of the action in varying areas

of the Country

a. The precedent upon which the Court held Petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari

‘denied’ opened the door to 14th Amendment Citizens being qualified for

the Office of the President really for the first time in the country’s history.

After that ruling and in Petitioner’s Sept 6th , 2012 letter to the Chief

Justice that included the following four paragraphs :

[In a Sept.28, 2012 ruling in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia Hassan v. F.E.C;11-2189, by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, in principled terms concurred that the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification demand for the Office of the President within the Constitution’s Article II, Sect. I., Clause 5 had not been “trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[(pg.16) briefly, the Court notes that Article 5 of the Constitution provides an explicit method to amend the Constitution. See U.S. Const., Art. V. Even if a constitutional provision could be implicitly repealed in the same manner as a statute, the implicit repeal of statutes is disfavored and will not be found absent clearly expressed congressional intent. See Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 662 2007); Posadas v. Nat’l City Bank, 296 U.S. 497, 503 (1936) (holding that “[w]here there are two acts upon the same subject, effect should be given to both if possible”). (Pg17).

4.

- the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid. See Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (“The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”); see also Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658 (1946) (same); Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673-674 (1944) (same). Plaintiff essentially asks this Court to declare that a provision of the Constitution is itself unconstitutional. It is beyond this Court’s authority to do so. “[T]his Court lacks the power to grant the relief sought because the Court, as interpreter and enforcer of the words of the Constitution, is not empowered to strike the document’s text on the basis that it is offensive to itself or is in some way internally (Pg.18) inconsistent.” New v. Pelosi, No. 08-Civ.-9055(AKH), 2008 WL 4755414, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), aff’d, 374 F. App’x 158 (2d Cir. 2010). Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to

that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail. ] Pg. 17 Hassan v. F.E.C. District of Columbia 11-2189

On the opposite side of the coin is my case where the Administrative Court ruling, the subsequent Superior Court, and Georgia Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment did in fact over-rule the ‘natural born citizen’ qualification demand for the Office of the President within the Constitution’s Article II, Sect. I., Clause 5. In these two example cases the affect cannot be given to both.

The two varying opinions are in collision with each other Your Honor. The denial of my Cert by the SCOTUS in fact catapults the latter from the realm of dicta to holding and is being used as such in malicious tread upon me as a sore loser. I am a Democratic Candidate for President.]]

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITION FOR REHEARING

1ST CAUSE- The Election

The Petitioner had no way of knowing how much damage was going to

happen to himself, and to his Campaign, without first the election taking

place, as if it was an accident happening in stages, that he filed at every

juncture appropriately with the damages of progression or points that were

seen as relevant. Extended damages are a consideration of the Court that are

intervening and could not have possibly been ascertained before the Election

in votes as well as monetarily.

5.

For example in a previous action of the Petitioner in 2008 the Federal District

Court ruled in Judy v. McCain 2:08-cv-01162 with Sen. John McCain

representing an unqualified candidate due to his birth in a foreign nation, his

being naturalized by law 11 months after his birth in an Act of Congress, the

Judge after the general election ruled Mr. Judy’s petition was “moot” due to

Barack Obama receiving a majority of votes and beating McCain. With this

logic, had Mitt Romney won Petitioner’s action would necessarily have been

focused in an action that was again ‘moot’, however this was not the case, so

Petitioner’s action must be considered in the course of the General Election

applicable with action or damages upon which relief can be granted.

2- PROCEDURAL MIS-HANDLING

There was no legal reason for which the WRIT should have been returned to

Petitioner in July, and the proof of that was that the document was received

by the Court without any corrections in my July 14th Letter to the Court, both

of these letters expressed the concern that Justice was being thwarted and

my case was being severely discriminated against in an unlawful and

injudicious way that violated Court procedure and that by these actions my

case was being removed from the Justices until the following Session which

was a manipulation of the election suited strategically in the Defendants

favor ultimately breaking restraint of the political doctrine question that

favored the Defendant from the get-go.

Further proof of this exists in that the Case Weldon v. Obama was given a

case number 2 weeks prior to Petitioner’s case Judy v. Obama. Now the

Weldon appeal was also from the Georgia’s Supreme Court. Petitioner

beliefs that the his case was finally given a case number because the

Weldon case from Georgia was granted a case number, and would provide a

cover for dismissing his case due to an unqualified or non-competitive

standing issue.

6.

There was no monetary damages that was asked for or that accrued in

Weldon v. Obama case as compared to the 20 MILLION DOLLARS worth of

damages accrued in Judy v. Obama making the two cases completely

different, and showing a complete lack of justice in that all the lower Courts

systematically considered the two cases together in their judgment, an

unprecedented and extreme injudicious action that represented such a far

and wildly odd departure from Justice that it would be considered a para-

normal abrogation of justice suited in the extremes of appropriating equally

for example the damage of a hang nail and the loss of an entire limb in the

same accident. No one in their right mind would consider the damages the

same. The dismissal of near 100% of Obama’s eligibility challenges on the

grounds of ‘standing’ witness to the Court, and is actually attested to by

Defendants lower Court arguments, that this is common sense. So now, with

Petitioners logic as a candidate and a campaign wounded by unfair

qualification demands in the race for President, is the Defendant to be

allowed to back pedal on what before was a bragging point that ultimate is a

smack in the face to Justice? Surely that would witness derangement and a

far departure of justice for all of America to see.

On September 6th ,2012 Petitioner CODY ROBERT JUDY submitted a letter to

Chief Justice John Roberts RECONSIDERATION: Standing Mixed up in

Conference Sep. 24th Judy v. Obama 12-5276 & Emergency Motion not

ruled upon violating Court procedure. This was not docketed by the Court

Clerks, and is nowhere to be seen on the Record Judy v. Obama 12-5276.

Further prejudices are provided upon the record of injustice, for example:

Due to the Court Clerk’s mistake of not granting Judy v. Obama a case

number before Weldon v. Obama with no legal excuse, Mr. Judy was forced

into the Fall Session of the Court’s Conference schedule. Because Petitioner’s

case is/was/ and continues to be suited in the terms of the 2012 ELECTION,

with him as a candidate in the same party contesting the very eligibility of

Barack Obama, with

7.

the consideration of election dates, Petitioner submitted an EMERGENCY

MOTION governed by the Court procedure July 30th,2012 also with a letter to

the Clerk, that was not posted as such by the Court Clerk on the docket, but

rather posted on the docket for the Public as an addition or supplemental

Brief to the WRIT OF CERTIORARI, rather than an EMERGENCY MOTION

that took precedence over and above body of the case.

If the Record is not accurately reflected, to distinguish from say a normal

motion and an Emergency Motion of circumstance, how can justice be

expected to be seen as lawfully competent, and the manipulation of the

business of the Court conducted by the clerks rather than the submitted to

Justices?

As such the EMERGENCY MOTION was not ruled upon, never has been ruled

upon, and because it was not ruled upon, warrants a complete

RECONSIDERATION by the Justices of the Court without the hindrance or

cover of Weldon v. Obama suited as a distraction or subversion to

Petitioners action as completely different in ‘standing’ , from which justice in

the U.S. Supreme Court seems callously and arbitrarily deposed by clerks,

rather than wisdom of Justices.

In 2011 it was published and made known to the United States that the 10th

Circuit had dismissed Keyes (Barnett) v. Obama due to what the defense

called no active Presidential Candidate, holding that if an active candidate

with competitive standing filed that the ‘qualifications’ of a candidate as a

‘natural born citizen’ challenged might be undertaken as a judicial

contemplation on the merits of precedent, otherwise, no such contemplation

could possibly be justified by the Courts.

3-APPOSING PRECEDENT DURING THE TERM OF THE ACTION

Precedent is certainly akin to the Court holdings of tradition and upon such a

major departure

8.

from the ‘natural born citizen’ clause of the Constitution, as has happened in

the United States in the last 100 years, being seen as a “ Denial” by the

Court to hear that in Georgia the 14th Amendment to ‘Citizen’ replaced

‘natural born citizen’, and then to see in Washington DC Sept.28, 2012 ruling

in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia Hassan v. F.E.C;11-

2189, by Federal District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, a black judge, who must

not have got the memo that ‘natural born citizen’ has been taken out of the

constitution by Georgia’s Iranian Administrative Judge Malihi, is very

confusing to the whole Country. Is justice dependent upon race now or skin

color? I mean it’s confusing and this is supposed to be a national election

where justice is blind to such things in the same year, about the same

subject?

SUMMARY

Judy v. Obama provided that KEY ingredient with a 20 MILLION dollar

campaign and contributions coming in from all over the United States of

America from concerned citizens actively building and contributing their hard

earned dollars in determination that existed in the root Constitutional

demand that the Office of the President of the United States of America only

be occupied by a ‘natural born citizen’. Barack Obama is not a natural born

citizen, and the legislative precedent has thwarted every and any attempt to

amend the Constitution in its demand for such. The Judicial Branch has an

obligation and judicial duty of upholding the legislative Branches demand, or

declaring it Unconstitutional with more respect and honor than a cowardice

DENIAL, stamped with unprecedented prejudice representing a slithering

creeping consummate beheading Lady Justice in front of the Citizens of the

United States who simply wanted an eligible candidate to vote for in the

Presidential Election of 2012.

9.

If Petitioner, the Contributors to his campaign, and all the Democratic Party,

and Citizenry voting for Barack Hussein Obama under the dereliction and

auspices of the most corrupt forgery and fraud every perpetrated upon the

Citizenry of the Untied States of America, are to be subjected to such horror

and blatant discrimination, prejudice, malcontent, and utter corrupt

usurpation of justice, then, in the spirit of “JUSTICE FOR ALL”, would not the

Justices themselves consider their Denial of this Action a decision worthy of

their own impeachment?

Petitioner should be granted relief of 20 Million Dollars by Defendant Barack

Obama and the State of Georgia to compensate himself and his contributors

a refund of their campaign expenditures and all other relief upon which the

Court deems appropriate with the election results and to the voters or

citizenry according to their wisdom of the Constitution.

Upon these arguments, grounds, and relief the Petitioner, respectfully

request that the Petition for Rehearing of the Writ of Certiorari be heard and

summarily granted.

Signed and Submitted this 12th day of November, 2012 /s/ Cody Robert Judy

_____________________________

Petitioner/pro se/CODY ROBERT JUDY

10.

DECLARATION OF MAILING

I do hereby declare under penalty of law certify that I mailed, via 1st class U.S. Mail and Email, a true and correct copy of the forgoing

1- PETITION FOR REHEARING OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI w/ accompanying Declaration of Certification..

Postage pre-paid, to the RESPONDENT(s), by and through Counsel(s) of Record at: Attorney for RESPONDENT: Esquire Mr. Michael Jablonski for Barack Obama and Cam-Anh Le Esq. &Vincent Robert Russo counsel(s) for secretary of State Brian Kemp, at:

1-Michael Jablonski Esq. 2221 Peachtree Rd. Suite D418 Atlanta, GA. 30309-1523 (404)290-2977 michael.jablonski@comcast.net

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

3- Solicitor General of the United States at, Room 5614, Department of Justice, 950

Pennsylvania Ave., N. W., Washington, DC 20530-0001

4- Sam Olens-Office of the Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, Ga 30334.

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

5-Cody Robert Judy 3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2 Ogden,UT. 84401 codyjudy@hotmail.com (801-497-6655

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

meritsbriefs@supremecourt.gov

On this the 12 th Day of NOVERMBER, 2012.

Signature of Mailer __/s/__Cody Robert Judy__________________________

11.

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Office of the Clerk – Mr. William K. Suter Washington, DC 20543-0001

RE: Cody Robert Judy v. Barack Obama 12-5276 November 12,2012 - - - - - - - - -

Dear Mr. Suter- Clerk of the Court:

Accordingly, pursuant to your letter to me dated November 7th, 2012 , enclosed please find THE

PETION FOR REHEARING w Accompanying Declaration of Certification. The petition is pursuant to

Rule 44 ,has a brief statement of the grounds at the beginning, and a Declaration of Certification that the

petition is in fact limited to substantial or controlling effect and to other substantial

grounds not previously presented and is presented in good faith and not for

delay.

The petition is submitted well in advance of the 15 days fo the date of your

letter of Nov. 7th, 2012.

Sincerely,

Cody Robert Judy/Petitioner /s/ Cody Robert Judy