Sibley v. Obama -- the Courts stall the litigation

I haven’t updated my litigation efforts which seek to challenge the eligibility of Mr. Obama to be President as for almost two months the Courts have refused to move the lawsuits forward.  However, I am still marching to the beat of that distant drum.  Here is the present status of my efforts:

First, in February I released my Nyguen Motion to the federal prisoner population.  The Nyguen Motion argues that: (i) Article II, Section 2, clause 2 grants the President the power to “appoint” federal judges, (ii) Obama is not eligible to be President as he is not a “natural born Citizen” and has refused to tendered any admissible proof that he is even a U.S. Citizen, (iii) therefore, his appointments are void under the holding of Nguyen v. United States and (iv) accordingly, all judicial acts by those judges – specifically including incarcerating prisoners – are void.  I have been in contact with a dozen “prison lawyers” and the Nyguen Motion has been well received. The first Nyguen Motion was filed in Arizona federal court.  The judge in that matter gave the government five (5) months to respond.  The usual response time is ten (10) days.  (Now Dali’s Clock image begins to make sense).

Second, in Sibley vs. Obama, I invoked the ancient writ of quo warranto to have the U.S. District Court compel Mr. Obama to demonstrate that he is eligible for the office of President.  That suit was dismissed by the District Court.  I perfected an appeal to which Mr. Obama moved to Summarily Affirm the District Court dismissal.  I filed my Opposition on March 8, 2013, but the panel of three judges of the Circuit Court have refused to rule upon the government's motion.

Third, in Sibley vs. Alexander et al – which is a class action complaint filed in D.C. Superior Court against the District of Columbia members of the so-called Electoral College – Judge Mott dismissed the suit on March 5, 2013.  I filed on March 12, 2013, a Motion to Vacate claiming the Order was asinine.  Judge Mott still has not ruled on that Motion to Vacate.

Fourth, in Sibley v D.C. Board of Elections which invoked an obscure D.C. law that allows a D.C. voter to mount a post-election challenge to an elected officials qualification for office, the Court ruled on March 13, 2013, that because it refused to address the case until after the inauguration of Mr. Obama, the matter is now "moot" and must be dismissed.  As no appeal is allowed of that decision, I have sued the judges of the DC Court of Appeal personally claiming in essence that for them to refuse to rule promptly in a matter so as to render it moot is judicial malfeasance warranting imposition of personally liability.  Not on my watch will such judicial hi-jinks go unchallenged.

Last, I know that I am making progress as my blog posts are being spammed by Obots seeking to prevent clear discussion of the issues I raise. Clearly, the idea of civilized resolution of a very serious question through my exercise of the rights of First Amendment Petitioning and Freedom of the Press terrifies these anonymous tyrants.  I think that is the reason our wise Framers added it to the Constitution so shortly after they realized what they had created and the dangers a federal government posed to individual rights.

Read More...

Summary only...

Sibley v Obama -- Update on the Litigation

After -- conveniently -- the inauguration of Mr. Obama, the Courts in which I have litigation pending which challenges Mr. Obama's Article II, Section 1 eligibility, have moved the cases forward (or backwards if you love liberty and the concept of the rule of law).

In  the first lawsuit – Sibley vs. Obama – I invoked the ancient writ of quo warranto to have the U.S. District Court compel Mr. Obama to demonstrate that he is eligible for the office of President.  That suit was dismissed by the District Court.  I perfected an appeal to which Mr. Obama moved to Summarily Affirm the District Court dismissal.  I have filed my Opposition and now the matter sits in the hands of a panel of three judges of the Circuit Court.

My second lawsuit – Sibley vs. Alexander,  Dinan and Lightfoot – is a class action complaint filed in D.C. Superior Court against the District of Columbia members of the so-called Electoral College as class representatives of the so-called Electoral College.  The Complaint seeks an injunction preventing any and all of the 538 Electors authorized by the Twelfth and Twenty-Third Amendments to the Constitution from casting their votes for an ineligible candidate, i.e., Mr. Obama. To delay matters, the government removed the case from D.C. Superior Court to D.C. District Court which I forced to remand back to D.C. Superior Court in early January.  Without letting me be heard, Judge Mott dismissed the suit in his Order dated March 5, 2013.  I have filed a Motion to Vacate claiming the Order asinine.  I will see what Judge Mott thinks of that in due course.

The third suit -- Sibley v D.C. Board of Election -- invokes an obscure D.C. law that allows a D.C. voter to mount a post-election challenge to an elected officials qualification for office.  This suit expressly grants legal "standing" to a D.C. voter -- the legal bar which has been raised by the government to all previous challenges to Obama's eligibility.  However, again denying oral argument, the Court ruled on March 13, 2013, that because it refused to address the case until after the inauguration, the matter is now "moot" and must be dismissed.  That is one way of avoiding the issue.  I am preparing a motion to reconsider which I will file shortly.

All this leads me to question whether Abraham Lincoln's resolution at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on November 19, 1863, that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" has, in fact, perished from these United States.  For this is no longer a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" but instead a rapidly expanding oligarchy determined to expand its power over the People until there is no liberty left to them.

Read More...

Summary only...

My Petition to Congress

Below is my letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees written in response to the denial of my Petition for Certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 15, 2013:

Greetings:

I write to Petition the Judicial Committee to take up the significant issue of the usurpation of legislative power by the Executive – with the express aid of the Judiciary – which power is expressly delegated to Congress by the Constitution. I deem this usurpation “significant” as it both: (i) trespasses upon the sole right of Congress to make the law and (ii) the People’s retained and reserved fundamental right to present evidence to a Grand Jury of the malfeasance of public officers.  Let me explain.

The 91st Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) which states:

It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney's action or recommendation. (Emphasis added).

The background for §3332(a) is set out at 2 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. New, House Report No. 91-1549, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970) at 4015: “Any such attorney who receives information of an alleged offense from any person must, if requested by the person, inform the grand jury of the alleged offense, the identity of the person who conveyed the information, and his own action or recommendation.”  

Initial judicial interpretation of §3332(a) followed its plain mandate that the U.S. Attorney was obligated – “shall” is an imperative auxiliary verb after all – to “inform the grand jury of such alleged offense”.  See: In the Matter of In re Grand Jury Application, 617 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)(“Since the United States Attorney has been requested to present certain information to the Grand Jury he must do so. I will not relieve him of a duty which Congress has seen fit to impose.  18 U.S.C. §3332(a) imposes a ‘plainly defined and peremptory duty’ on the part of the United States Attorney to present the plaintiffs’ information concerning the alleged wrongdoing of the other defendants to the Grand Jury.”)  

By enacting §3332(a), Congress was simply confirming the status quo which, from the commencement of our Republic, retained and reserved to the People under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments the right to present evidence of criminal behavior the Grand Jury.  Take note that in 1895, Justice Brewer in Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 163 (1895) described a system relying on an energetic Grand Jury: “[I]n this country the common practice is for the Grand Jury to investigate any alleged crime, no matter how or by whom suggested to them, and after determining that the evidence is sufficient to justify putting the party suspected on trial, to direct the preparation of the formal charge or indictment.” (Emphasis added). Plainly, one of the historical purposes of the Grand Jury was to investigation government corruption.  For example, although the infamous Tweed Ring in New York City was attacked by many well intentioned reformers, it took a New York City grand jury to actually break the Ring in 1872. The grand jury members conducted their own investigation, independent of the district attorney's office.  See: United States District Attorney George Z. Medalie, Grand Juries Value, The Panel, Mar.-Apr. 1931, at 185.  

As is well known, at his Press Conference on April 27, 2011, Barack Hussein Obama, II made the following statement regarding his Certificate of Live Birth (“COLB”): “As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth. Now, this issue has been going on for two, two and a half years now.  I think it started during the . . .  We've posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see.”

Whether or not Mr. Obama’s COLB is – and if he knew it to be – a forgery is not the issue of this Petition.  I reviewed the matter personally, consulted with those with greater experience in such matters and concluded that it was a forgery. Coupled with significant questions surrounding Mr. Obama’s refusal to produce his: (i) college applications and transcripts from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School, (ii) U.S. Passport application, (iii) Social Security application, and (iv) Selective Service registration, I came to the conclusion that a federal crime had been committed and I deemed it appropriate upon my taken-oath to defend the Constitution from, among others, domestic enemies, to present that evidence to the Grand Jury in Washington, D.C.

Accordingly, upon the above-cited historical and legislative authority, on January 12, 2012, I properly “requested” Ronald C. Machen Jr., the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to inform the Grand Jury that Barack Hussein Obama, II  may have violated a Federal criminal law, to wit, 18 U.S.C. §1343, “Fraud by wire, radio, or television”.  Receiving no response from Mr. Machen, I then filed suit in the U.S. District Court against him seeking a court order to compel Mr. Machen to present my evidence to the Grand Jury.

In response, the District Court held that: “18 U.S.C. §3332 cannot be enforced by private individuals.”  This stunning response apparently grafted on to §3332 a requirement that only government officials can invoke §3332 – something that is asinine when government officials are the subject of the alleged criminal offense.  I properly took an appeal of this issue to the D.C. Circuit Court which – refusing to me both briefing and oral argument – summarily affirmed the District Court’s order.  I then timely filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which on February 15, 2013, denied my Petition and thus confirmed  that 18 U.S.C. §3332 no longer is the law of this Nation.  See: U.S. Supreme Court Case #: 12-736.

Thus my task is done, for I can do no more, and yours – upon your oath of office – has just begun. Will you stand by and allow this usurpation of the fundamental and statutory right of the People to petition a Grand Jury to investigate criminal behavior be deleted by the Executive and Judicial cabal?  Or, instead will you promptly address this grotesque affront to the Congressional authority to make the law and see it enforced as written?  I trust the latter will be your course and will pray for this Republic’s future if you chose instead the former.

I am of course available to speak to these matters in greater detail and provide the referenced documents.

yours,

Montgomery Blair Sibley

Read More...

Summary only...