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.