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.