Not only in Denmark is something rotten . . .

Part of the purpose of this blog is to document the shenanigans of the Courts which otherwise would go unnoticed by the general population.

So today I memorialize a neat trick by the District of Columbia Court of  Appeals:  Enter an order and then say you did not enter an order.  Here are the facts which are more fully detailed in my Verified Motion For Emergency En Banc Hearing :

1. On November 29, 2012, I filed a lawsuit in the D.C. Court of Appeals captioned Sibley v.  District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics and assigned Case. No.: 12-AA-1906.

2. On February 1, 2013, having not heard anything from the Court in that matter, I called the Clerk’s office and inquired of the Clerk as to the most recent activity in this matter.  The Clerk informed me that on January 16, 2013, the Court entered an Order.  I indicated that I had never received the Order and requested that a copy be immediately sent to me.

3. I then telephoned Terri Stroud, counsel for the Respondent, and inquired whether she had received the January 16, 2013, Order.  Ms. Stroud replied that she had not received it but only had obtained a copy on February 1, 2013, by walking over to the Court to get a copy directly from the Clerk.  As a matter of professional courtesy, Ms. Stroud then emailed a copy of the January 16, 2013, Order to me.

4. On February 6, 2013, I finally received by U.S. Mail a copy of the January 16, 2013, Order in an envelope dated stamped February 4, 2013. 

5. On February 11, 2013, I received an Order dated February 6, 2013, in an envelope dated February 6, 2013.  That Order stated: "no order was entered on January 16, 2013” and “petitioner's February 5, 2013, motion to vacate is denied as no order was entered”. 

Plainly, the Clerk issued to both me and counsel for the Respondent the January 16, 2013, order stamped as “Filed January 16, 2013”.  Either an order was entered on January 16, 2013, or it was not so entered.  If the former is true, then the Court is prevaricating in its February 6, 2013, Order.  If the latter is true, then someone is issuing forged orders to the parties in this case.

Either way, a felony has been committed under 18 U.S.C. § 2071: “Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally” which states:

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

A priori, someone has “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies” a court record in violation of § 2071.  Thus the very integrity of the judicial process has been compromised.

I have, of course, demanded that the U.S. Attorney present these allegations to the Grand Jury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3332, though I am not jejune: Getting that access is unlikely as the wagons are well circled here within the I-495 Beltway from intrusion by the People.