Thursday, August 13, 2015

My Frolic & Detour

While I have been fighting the good fight for an Article V convention, I have taken a "frolic & detour" to continue to beat the drum regarding the questionable identity documents of Barack Obama.  My recital hall for that drum beat has been, since July of 2014, the grand jury and courts of Montgomery County, Maryland. I have not written of this before as I was quite sure that it would take the better part of a year to get a judicial decision from the Maryland Appellate Court regarding my "right" to petition the Grand Jury to present the compelling evidence of the questionable nature of those identity documents. I was wrong, it now looks like 1 1/2 years.  Let me explain:

In or about July 2014, I became aware of what I believed was criminal behavior  by Barack Hussein Obama in violation of Maryland law, to wit, inter alia, the continuing violation of Maryland Code, §8-303, Government identification document.  (Record Extract p. 10).  Accordingly, I – in order to discharge my obligation as a Citizen to raise the “hue and cry” – reported this belief to the Montgomery County Police who referred me to the Maryland State Attorney.  (Record Extract p.10)

Pursuant to the holding in Brack v. Wells, 184 Md. 86 (Md. 1944), on September 13, 2014, I requested in writing to the Honorable John W. Debelius, III that upon the evidence furnished to him by me that Judge Debelius, III “issue a warrant for the arrest of Barack Hussein Obama.” (Record Extract p. 10).

Additionally, and again pursuant to Brack v. Wells, on September 22, 2014, I wrote Bryan Roslund, Assistant State’s Attorney, Chief, Special Prosecution Division, Office of the State’s Attorney, Montgomery County, Maryland, requesting to appear before the Grand Jury to present my belief of the violations of Maryland criminal law.  (Record Extract p. 10). 

On September 25, 2014, I received from ASA Roslund a letter – putatively co-signed by Foreman of the Grand Jury – stating: “The Grand Jury for Montgomery County, Maryland has considered your request that an investigation be opened into whether documents relating to President Obama’s eligibility for office are fraudulent. The Grand Jury declines to investigate this matter.” (Record Extract pp. 11 & 14) Notably, the purported signature of the Foreman of the Grand Jury on that letter is illegible.

As a result, on October 6, 2014, I filed my Complaint seeking a declaratory degree determining my right, status, and other legal relations between me and the Montgomery County Grand Jury and its Foreman in particular declaring:

(i) That I had the right to present to the Foreman of the Grand Jury in person my request-to-appear before that body as I has exhausted my remedies before a magistrate and the State’s Attorney;

(ii) That the Foreman thereafter has the obligation to present my request-to-appear “to the grand jury for whatever action that body desires to take”; and

(iii) That in this particular case, the behavior of ASA Roslund has so prejudiced the Foreman of the Grand Jury as to deprive me of my right to an untainted Grand Jury to consider my “complaint”.  (Record Extract p. 13).   

On December 2, 2014, the State’s Attorney for Montgomery County made an unopposed Motion to Intervene – which was subsequently granted – and a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action. (Record Extract p. 28).  On January 22, 2015, a hearing was held on the State Attorney’s Motion to Dismiss before Judge Mason.  After oral argument, Judge Mason granted the Motion to Dismiss and the case was dismissed without prejudice. (Record Extract. 39).  On January 27, 2015, I filed my Motion to Alter or Amend the January 22, 2015, Order of Dismissal. (Record Extract p. 40). 

Additionally, on January 27, 2015, I hand-delivered to the State Attorney for Montgomery County a sealed letter addressed to the Foreman of the Grand Jury requesting confirmation from the State Attorney that: (i) the letter was delivered to the Grand Jury as sealed, (ii) the identify of the person to whom the letter was delivered and (iii) the date, time and place of the delivery of the sealed letter. (Record Extract  p. 43).  On February 10, 2015, I received the February 5, 2015 letter from the putative, unidentified “Foreperson of the Grand Jury” declining to investigate my allegations.  (Record Extract  p. 44).

On May 11, 2015, Judge Mason denied my Motion to Alter or Amend the January 22, 2015 Order of Dismissal. (Record Extract p. 45). I timely took an appeal which now pends before the Maryland Special Court of Appeals.

I have filed my Initial Brief in the appeal and oral argument is scheduled for the first week in February 2016.

A very slow Frolic & Detour indeed.


Wednesday, July 22, 2015

I act, then I speak . . .

I have acted on the failure of Congress 
to call a convention to propose amendments, 
so now I guess I can speak (for 14 minutes):


Thursday, July 2, 2015

Sibley v. Congress IV -- Heading towards a decision

After a month and a half of litigation noise, the first lap of my Article V lawsuit is heading down the home stretch.  After the case  was removed from D.C. Superior Court, I moved to remand it back.  Defendants' McConnell & Boehner objected to my motion to remand.  I replied to their objection.

Meanwhile, Defendants McConnell & Boehner moved to dismiss the case arguing (i) that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, (ii) the Speech or Debate Clause prohibited the Court from getting involved and (iii) my suit presents a non-justiciable political question.  I have filed my Opposition to that Motion to Dismiss.

I also sought the Court's permission to convert my lawsuit to a Class Action naming 100 Senators and 435 Representatives as Defendants.  Might as well make sure everyone comes to the party.

So, as we say in the legal world,  the issues are joined so that Court can now move forward and decide.  I will spare you the technical legal argument raised by McConnell & Boehner and leave you with Federalist No.: 85 by Alexander Hamilton:
It is this: that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. . . .  We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority. (Emphasis added).
Now we wait and see what the good Judge Boasberg has to say to all this.