1

Cody Robert Judy

Attorney Pro Se
3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2
Ogden, Utah 84401
801-497-6655
___________________________________________________________________________________
DISTRICT OF UTAH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
________________________________________________________________________

CODY ROBERT JUDY , MOTION FOR DEFAULT
Plaintiff, w/ PROPOSED ORDER OF JUDGEMENT

v. Case No. 1:14cv00093
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JUDGE: Honorable TED STEWART
aka BARRY SOETORO , DNC ,
ORGANIZATION FOR ACTION et al.,
Defendant(s)
__________________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Cody Robert Judy pro se, and submits this MOTION FOR DEFAULT with an
accompanying proposed ORDER OF DEEFAULT.
FACTS & HISTORY OF THE CASE 1:14-cv-93
1. July 7
th
, Plaintiff filed the Civil Rights and Sherman/Clayton Act Complaint with the 20 Day
Summons and accompanying Order to Proceed Informa Pauperis.

2. July 8
th
Plaintiffs Motion was granted by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead.


3. July 14
th
the Court recognized the Motion to Proceed without cost on the Docket and it was
filed on July 10
th
.

4. July 14
th
-The Court issued 20 Day Summons were mailed to the Plaintiff who received them on
the July 15
th
.

2

5. July 15
th
- An Order of Recusal was signed by Senior Judge Bruce S. Jenkins

6. July 16
th
-The Defendants were served the Complaint and the Court stamped 20 Day Summons
at the Democratic Party Headquarters at the address 825 North 300 West C400, Salt Lake City,
Utah 84103. (801) 328-1212.

7. July 16
th
-The verification of the service of the Complaint and the 20 Day Summons were
recognized by the Court by two witnesses, in two (2) witnessed RETURN OF SERVICE documents
filed in the court the same day. The two witnesses are the person authorized to receive the
service for the Defendants and the Server.

8. July 17
th
- The Court recognized was the first day from which the 20 day Summons began.

9. July 21
st
The Order of Recusal was recognized by Judge Jenkins and filed in the Docket.

10. August 8
th
- a Default is recognized on the Court Issued 20 Day Summons by the two witnesses
on the Return of Service of the Complaint and the Court issued 20 Summons giving the
Defendants Twenty (20) Days plus three (3) days mailing service.

ARGUMENT FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

1- While this is an Original Action between Plaintiff and Defendant(s), Plaintiff is not without
experience to the political play of the Defendant Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro
(hereafter BHO) simply refusing to respond as a tactic in prior administrative court action
ballot challenges in multiple states.
2- The culmination of these ballot challenges briefly are stated here as a relative matter of
history of the disrespect for the Judicial Branch and subsequent Court service and
complaint. In 2012 Plaintiff notices his part in an administrative court action in New
Hampshire and Georgia which were ultimately taken to the State of New Hampshires
Supreme Court and the Georgia State Supreme Court where the defendant BHO was served
but basically didnt have to file an objection because the administrative court law judges
were filing them for him. The culminations of these are found in The United States Supreme
Court as Judy v. Obama case no. 12-5276.
3

3- As original proceedings they were indeed ballot challenges and the subsequent Judicial
Branch complaints of those ballot challenges were summed up in petitions for review of
unlawful and unreasonable ruling by an administrative agency. However in the Georgia Case
particularly notable was an exchange between BHOs attorney Michael Jablonski of Atlanta,
Georgia and Honorable Brian P. Kemp at the time the Georgia Secretary of State, where Mr.
Jablonski states he and his client will no longer participate in administrative hearings, to
which Mr. Kemp responded if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in
the ..proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.

4- Indeed in the final analysis of those administrative court proceedings BHO just went missing
in action. The administrative court Judge Malihi in Georgia proceeding ruled in favor of
someone who made a choice not to even show up with council and in the respect for time
before the elections this worked in BHOs favor.

5- Plaintiff can only speculate with the Court as to the tactical advantages for the Defendants
not to show up or respond to the complaint. One of course is the ability to avoid a jury trial.
Effectively, Defendants take the action out of twelve members of a Jury to the discretion of
a single person, YOUR HONOR. In avoiding a Jury Trial Defendants indeed take the chance
or risk that the Honorable Judge of this Court will also act in an original Civil Rights
Complaint with the comporting Federal Act violations detailed as the Sherman and Clayton
Acts the same way the administrative court law judges did in the Ballot Challenges.

6- While the administrative court Judge Malihi made a lengthy ruling, he was able to do so
basically under the cloak of an administrative court in the executive branch that is not really
held accountable to a standard of law the Judicial Branch is held to and to object to the
Judicial Branch about a standard of the executive branch court is like trying to argue the
same standards apply to both courts when they most certainly do not.

7- Of course administrative courts do serve a purpose of exhaustion of remedies. These do
arguably remain as witnesses and steadfast warnings that indeed the rights are being
trampled of the Plaintiff and in continuation of those rights being trampled the cost are
adding up. Avoiding peril in an administrative court may not apply the same way in a U.S.
Court.
4


8- The plaintiff asserts that while it may serve as a benefit to the Defendants not to show up or
acknowledge the Courts 20 Day issued Summons that was served with the complaint to
avoid a Jury Trial that can cost the tax-payers needless to say, it should not be used as a
tempered action to avoid justice as a tactical ploy.

9- Indeed this action is not a secret publically by any means or stretch of the imagination. It is
being talked about, blogged about, and reported upon nationally all over, in Amazon
Discussions, Internet Magazines, Blogs, YouTube Videos, Twitter, Facebook etc. Plaintiffs
own blog bears the report of history of the case at www.codyjudy.blogspot.com , and
indeed it should be as his supporters, so many people have suffered in silence hoping for
justice, while justice has taken her time. Lets not forget how important a video can be as
the tragedy of Benghazi were people actually died serves as a reminder of the tactical
advantage BHO has demonstrated an affinity for in false blame. Defendants are certainly
aware and have been properly served this action.

10- Indeed Defendants all of them; make no bones about throwing out as witnesses to the
public all of the ballot challenges as valued evidence of merit as if they are U.S. District
Court Cases filed by Presidential Candidates who have suffered tremendously directly.
While standing and jurisdiction have merit, they do not apply as a disadvantage to the
Plaintiff in this case nor his history. Plaintiff has not violated the standards of the
Constitution as it applies to the Office of the Presidents qualifications found there in. We
are talking about BHOs violations and the damages they have caused directly to the Plaintiff
and indirectly to every American Citizen waking up this morning.

11- Plaintiff acknowledges that DEFAULTS are readily overcome in some argument, but at least
the arguments have to be made. Plaintiff also asserts that while Defendants have chosen to
refuse to answer, the U.S. District Attorneys Office also knows how to serve upon
Defendants a Default Judgment and Order working for the Plaintiff. As the U.S. District
Attorney has not been employed by the Defendant their service is readily available for the
Plaintiff in this action and at the Courts discretion seeing violations.

5

12- The Court is at liberty to understand that a Jury Trial has in a sense been conducted and a
sentence has been passed down with the undisputed facts related in the Complaint in favor
of the Plaintiff. Undisputed facts and an undisputed or agreed upon settlement for
damages. Indeed Defendants not responding is an agreement between both parties of all
the facts and all the damages the Court simply recognizes and so orders and that is stated in
the Complaint.

13- Plaintiff therefore asks the Court for an award of damages as stated in the complaint and
that it be ordered in a Default Judgment.

Signed this 11
th
Day of August, 2014
Cody Robert Judy/ pro se _____________________________