-->

Sunday, December 16, 2018

Chapter 2: My Book on the Calling of the First Article V Convention of the States

Chapter Two (of Fourteen)


Spring 2017

If you can do something good, You should.
If you are the only One who can do something good,
You must.

Sibley's Law

Montgomery Blair Sibley really did not want to file another lawsuit in the spring of 2016. Having battled the government and its arbitrary and capricious, unauthorized exercise of power for years, a simpler existence called loudly to him.  He had birthed and parented four children to adulthood and shepherded, at their requests, three wives to better lives and out of his. His legal career had never left his original intent to "do good" as had so many of his fellow members of the bar who had used their law license monopoly to "do well".

Blair had spent the years 2006 through 2009 representing Jeane Palfrey who became known as the D.C. Madam.  Jeane had run an upscale escort service in Washington, D.C. for 14 years without complaint or criminal investigation.  Yet for reasons that remain to this day unclear, in the fall of 2006, the federal government seized all of Jeane's assets and subsequently indicted her on money laundering charges.  Blair represented Jeane in her civil and criminal matters; that story is told in the book he wrote: "Why Just Her? The Judicial Lynching of the D.C. Madam".  

Jeane was found dead by hanging in June 2009, a death that was ruled a suicide but left many questions unanswered.  However, the notoriety of Jeane's case thrust Blair into a spotlight that saw him approached by many who felt they could not cope with the government that was expending resources in prosecuting cases of them that had no legitimate reason for prosecution.

Thus it was that Larry Sinclair called Blair in the summer of 2008 seeking help.  Larry claimed that he had information about Barack Obama's sex and drug history. In particular, Larry and the Choir Director of Obama's church in Chicago had exchanged a series of text messages regarding Obama and their homosexual relationship with him.  Shortly thereafter, the choir director, Donald Young, age 47, was found dead -- shot in the back of the head in his Chicago apartment execution style. Larry was afraid for his life and the Chicago Police were not sympathetic.

Blair proposed to Larry a simple strategy:  Put the truth out in bold fashion and the result would be assured:  Ridicule and the news cycle would move on. As a result, Blair organized a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.  At the press conference -- still on YouTube -- Larry made his allegations, was ridiculed and then, unexpectedly, arrested by order of Joe Biden's son on a Delaware warrant for bad checks.  The result was as Blair intended. No one through Larry credible and he was soon relegated to a minor footnote that has been all but erased. Larry now lives quietly in Florida.

Yet Blair had challenged yet again the status quo and once again he was approached by those who believed that for factual and legal reasons Obama was not eligible to be President of the United States given the qualifications contained in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The still-unresolved legal question was: what was the definition of a "natural born Citizen" as used in Article II of the U.S. Constitution -- a question that no court had ever addressed.  

The factual questions were even more troubling.  No objective examination of the putative birth certificate of Obama could conclude that it was genuine.  And the factual concerns about Obama's history went further. His social security number belonged to a long dead Connecticut resident. His selective service card had serious alterations on it.  His University records were sealed and he refused to release them. Most troubling, Obama refused to address any of these concerns other than allowing one journalist, Savannah Guthrie, to see the alleged "original" birth certificate. And then three days later, after President Obama’s green light was given, Osama Bin Laden was conveniently captured and the media moved on from the Birth Certificate issue. As a result, the media's constantly repeated phrase that Obama was a "natural born Citizen" and anyone who dared to question it was a "birther nut" became the gospel of the mainstream media.

Thus, Blair became the recipient of repeated requests by the legal disenfranchised -- few knew how to litigate the issue of the meaning of "natural born Citizen" and the authenticity of Obama's identity documents and even less would -- to do that which they could not.  So, following the law he named after himself, he did.

A flurry of lawsuits by Blair challenged the legal and factual issues of Obama's eligibility. Blair had subpoenas served on the White House, Columbia University, Harvard Law School, Occidental College, and the Selective Service and Social Security administrations all seeking Obama's records.  Yet without hearings, one court after another dismissed his lawsuits proving that though each citizen has a right to demand the government comply with the law, no citizen has a remedy when the government does not so comply.

Blair of course appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Eventually, the Supreme Court -- which refused to consider his appeals -- entered an order barring him from any filings at the Supreme Court and removed him from the Bar of the Supreme Court all without a hearing.

It was during this period that the curious case of U.S. v. Elizabeth Duke arose.  Elizabeth Duke was involved with the Weather Underground movement of the 1970s and 1980s.  Those who know of those times remember the bombings around the country by the Weather Underground.  Elizabeth Duke had been indicted in 1985 for bombing the U.S. Capitol among other buildings in Washington, D.C.  When she was arrested, she had a key to a storage locker in Pennsylvania containing TNT and false identity documents.  Yet she was granted and made bail and then fell off the radar. She was subsequently declared a fugitive and was placed on the FBI's most wanted list where she remained until 2009.  Circumstantial evidence connected Elizabeth Duke with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1970s anti-war movement and the organizers of “Progressives for Obama.” They raised funds for Obama, promoted his candidacy, and helped to recruit activists to support him.

Then a curious incident occurred after Obama was sworn in as President in 2009.  In June of 2009, a person -- representing himself as from Obama's Department of Justice -- walked into the Courtroom of U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson and made an Oral Motion to dismiss the Indictment against fugitive Elizabeth Duke.  Magistrate Judge Robinson granted the motion and dismissed the indictment.

The reason this incident was curious is this:  The person who made the motion to dismiss does not appear as a U.S. Attorney in any court records.  Moreover, Article I Magistrate Judges like Robinson do not have authority to dismiss indictments; that power is reserved to Article III judges. So why was Obama having the indictment dismissed against a Weather Underground fugitive 25 years after she jumped bail?

Inquiring minds, led by Neil Sankey, wanted to know and reached out to Blair for an explanation.  Once again Blair found himself prisoner to Sibley's law as he alone could understand what happened and dare to do something about it.  Blair contacted the court reporter and obtained a transcript of the short June 2009 court hearing.  The transcript revealed that no reason was given to dismiss the indictment against Elizabeth Duke; a requirement of criminal law.  Moreover, in the Order signed by Magistrate Judge Robinson she: (i) said that a good reason was given and (ii) signed the order as an Article III district court judge which she most certainly was not.  Lying on a court document and impersonating a federal officer are both federal felonies that Magistrate Judge Robinson had indisputably committed.

As an officer of the Court, Blair brought these charges against Magistrate Robinson to the attention of Judge Garland of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  Judge Garland, who was very familiar with Blair from the D.C. Madam, Obama birth certificate and Larry Sinclair cases, buried Blair's complaint under legal mumbo-jumbo.  Magistrate Robinson still sits on the D.C. District Court.

Clearly, Blair was persona non grata among Washington D.C.'s judicial power elite.  But who else would you turn to if you believed that Congress was violating the Constitution?  And so in the spring of 2015, Blair was contacted by a group who believed that Article V had been triggered obligating Congress to call a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.  Once again, Blair felt obligated to make voices heard that the political and judicial systems had muted as challenges to their very authority to wield power without restraint.

In this case, Article V is clear. "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments."   Two thirds of the fifty states of the Union equals thirty-four (34) and by most accounts, applications has been made by many more than thirty-four states.  Yet Congress has refused to discharge its ministerial duty to "call a convention for proposing amendments".

For Blair, the solution was clear.  File suit against Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan as class action representatives of Congress, allege that as a U.S. Citizen, Blair had a right to have his government administered according to law and that Congress was violating the law -- Article V -- by not discharging its duty to call the Convention referenced in Article V.

And so he did.  The result was predictable and expected.  After going through the machinations of filing and serving the lawsuit on McConnell and Ryan -- no easy task -- their response was to argue procedural bars to Blair's suit rather than address the merits.

First, McConnell and Ryan argued that Blair did not have “standing” to complain about the failure of Congress to discharge their obligation under Article V to call a convention.  Second, they argued that the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibited the Court’s from interfering with what Congress chooses to do or not do. Last, McConnell and Ryan argued that the Political Question Doctrine likewise removed from the Court’s any authority to intervene in Congressional affairs.
These arguments were bought lock, stock and barrel by the District Court judge and he quickly entered his order dismissing Blair’s lawsuit upon these grounds.  Thus followed the appeal by Blair which landed the matter upon the desk of Judge Garland in the winter of 2016.


Read More...

Sunday, December 9, 2018

I am serially releasing my Book on the Calling of the First Article V Convention of the States

Dedication

For My Grandmother, Georgiana Farr Sibley who said:

Equality is not an anthropological, political, sociological or economic question; it is a theological question. Either God made everybody in God’s own image, or God didn't make anybody at all.

Chapter One
The Honorable Merrick Brian Garland -- Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- was beyond furious, he was vengeful; Old Testament God vengeful and in his right hand lay a mighty swift sword of retribution.

He had done everything right: Graduated summa cum laude as valedictorian from Harvard College; graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School where he was a member of the Harvard Law Review; served as a law clerk for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr.

In 1993, Garland joined the new Clinton administration as deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice supervising high-profile domestic-terrorism cases, including the Oklahoma City bombing. He made sure the results in each case were as ordered and that significant, but embarrassing, questions remained unanswered.

After brief stints in a major international law firm -- Arnold & Porter which left him with a net worth of some $20 million -- President Clinton appointed him to the federal bench where he rose to the second highest court in the land -- the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals where he became its Chief Judge.

There was only one office left for which he had been preparing his whole life: Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Garland was considered twice for that office in 2009 and in 2010. Both times he saw himself passed over by President Obama in favor of the more politically-correct appointees: women Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

So when Montgomery Blair Sibley raised the issue of the curious dismissal by the Obama Department of Justice of the 1985 indictment of the domestic terrorist, fugitive Elizabeth Duke, Judge Garland had a political chip he knew would get him the nomination he had so long craved.  In that matter, for no given reason, a Magistrate Judge had impersonated a federal judge and signed an order dismissing the indictment of the Weather Underground member and U.S. Capitol bombing Elizabeth Duke in 2009.  When Sibley objected to the D.C. Circuit Court, Judge Garland buried the case to avoid the scandal that an intellectually honest review would have caused then President Obama.

Thus, Judge Garland was not surprised when President Obama on March 16, 2016, nominated him to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia.  Judge Garland had more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history.  He was a shoe-in to be approved by the Senate.

But in 2016 the death grip of partisan politics had tighten its grip on the Constitutionally-mandated process for approving judicial appointments.  Long a contentious battle, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on Judge Garland’s nomination insisting that the next elected president should fill the vacancy.  Thus, in January 2017, Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court expired and with it any realistic hopes of Judge Garland ever getting to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Judge Garland born to a Jewish family and was raised in Conservative Judaism.  That creed, at its Passover celebration, recited Psalm 79 as part of the Haggadah:

Pour forth Your wrath upon the nations that do not recognize You and upon the kingdoms that do not invoke Your name. For they have devoured Jacob and destroyed his habitation. Pour forth Your fury upon them and let Your burning wrath overtake them. Pursue them with anger and destroy them from beneath the heavens of the Lord.

On a cold January 2017 day, sitting at his desk in Chambers, Judge Garland wondered how he could “pour forth” his vengeance on those who denied him his just due.  And not just the Republicans in the Senate, but the Democrats as well who played similar politics with the workings of the Republic for their own political party’s advantage.

While a shaft of divine light did not stream through the window of his Chambers and highlight the case sitting before him on his desk, it might as well have for Judge Garland saw the case as divine intervention. The case, Sibley v. McConnell and Ryan, in the hands of a judge as canny as Judge Garland, would allow Judge Garland to “destroy them from beneath the heavens of the Lord” all those who had so fouled the Constitution and, more importantly, left Judge Garland an embittered man. 

Read More...

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Is Robert Mueller Now a Felon?


Image result for mueller felon
At the November 8, 2018, Oral Argument before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case of Andrew Miller v. United States of America, the Court announced that it was going to consider the implications of the resignation of Mr. Sessions as Attorney General the day before at a subsequent time.  Thereafter, the Court entered its Order asking for Supplemental Briefs on that question to be filed by November 19, 2018.


I took up that request and have filed a Supplemental Letter as I didn't have time to comply with the difficult Circuit Court brief filing rules (number of copies, green cover, spiral binding, etc).  We will see if the Court is going to elevate form over substance and hear what I have to say or, spending its time counting the number of Angels on the head of a pin, refuse my Letter.

However, the technical analysis contained in my Letter leads to an inescapable conclusion:  Mr. Mueller no longer has authority to act as Special Counsel and if he continues to do so, he is impersonating a federal officer: a felony found at  18 U.S.C. §912.

Read More...