Sibley vs. D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics

As it should be clear by now, I believe that Barack Hussein Obama, II does not qualify as a "natural born Citizen" which, along with being over 35 years of age and a U.S. resident for fourteen years, are the three requirements found in the Constitution at Article II, Section 1, for anyone to be President.  While my quo warranto lawsuits drags through the federal District and Circuit courts and pends at the United States Supreme Court, I have decided to challenge Mr. Obama's eligibility from a different angle.



Today I filed a Petition for Review with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.  That Petition seeks judicial review of the determination by the D.C. Board of Elections that Barack Hussein Obama, II, is eligible to appear on the November 6, 2012, General Election ballot as the Democratic Party nominee for President.


In particular, I noted in the Petition that Obama’s “Affidavit of Democratic Candidate” failed to provide any basis for the D.C. Board of Elections to discharge their statutory duty imposed pursuant to D.C. Code §1-1001.05(14) which states that the D.C. Board of Elections is obligated to: “Determine that candidates meet the statutory qualifications for office; . . .”   Though I admit that there is ambiguity in the D.C. statutes and regulations, I nonetheless maintain that D.C. Board of Elections Executive Director Clifford D. Tatum’s letter of January 9, 2012, confirming that Obama is eligible to appear on the D.C. ballot as the Democratic Presidential candidate, appears to have failed to properly discharge that duty.


Accordingly, based upon the substantial legal arguments and factual proffers contained in the Petition, I have asked the D.C. Court of Appeals to review the D.C. Board of Election’s determination that Obama is eligible to be President and reverse that determination and remove Obama’s name from the ballot for President in the November 6, 2012, General Election.


The Petition will now be served upon the D.C. Board of Elections which will have an opportunity to respond.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Issues are Joined

In my quo warranto lawsuit against Obama, as we say in the Law, the issues are now joined for the Court's determination.  Last week, the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss my lawsuit seeking to oust Obama and have access to the Grand Jury to present evidence of Obama's arguably criminal behavior relating to his putative certificate of birth.

In response to the quo warranto writ Obama said that the only person who could bring that suit is his Attorney General, Eric Holder.  That's convenient and not likely to happen anytime during the next four years.

In response to my demand made pursuant to the First Amendment's guarantee of the right to petition and the duty imposed through 18 U.S.C. §3332 by Congress on the Attorney General to present evidence of criminal behavior to the Grand Jury when requested, the Defendant Attorney General said in sum and substance "I can ignore Congress and while Mr. Sibley may have a right to Petition the Grand Jury, he can't enforce that right. Neh, Neh, Neh Boo, Boo." (O.K., I added that last part) Kim Jong Un probably wishes he had thought of that!

My Memorandum of Law in Opposition has been drafted and filed.  Needless to say it argues the opposite and a lot more to boot.  

So now Judge Bates will act as Referee and decides who wins when he gets around to it.  

Read More...

Summary only...

Fate of the Republic to be Decided April 20th

I think the Gods must have a sense of humor to choose April 20th (420) to have Obama's fate decided.  Particularly, as a previous post of mine related Obama's lying to the public about his support of state's rights and medical marijuana during his 2008 campaign.


On April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to fast-track the determination of Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President.  The unresolved question is whether, with a father who was a British subject, Obama can qualified as President as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as a "natural born Citizen".  The considered weight of the legal scholarship on that question is a resounding "No!".  Yet if this issue is never allowed to be adjudicated, then the constrictors of the Constitution are no longer in force and effect.  Instead that hallowed document is to be considered by the Supreme Court as aspirational alone in its effect: Something I am quite sure the Framers did not intend.


On April 20, if the Supreme Court agrees to fast track the determination of Obama's eligibility, a decision will be had on that issue before the September 2012 Democratic convention.  If they instead let the judicial process grind on for years -- and I have had a case, 07-6522, pending at the Supreme Court for over four (4) years -- then the question of Obama's eligibility to be President may only be decided after his second term expires.


In that case, though we have Constitutional right to a President who is a "natural born Citizen", we have no way of enforcing that right.

Read More...

Summary only...

I Force the Supreme Court to Rule on Obama’s Eligibility to Be President

I guess my work is done in one sense.  I have, as few could and fewer still would, properly placed before the United States Supreme Court the question of whether Barack Hussein Obama, II, is Constitutionally eligible to be President?


I have done this by filing this morning a Petition for Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.  That Petition presents the Supreme Court with record evidence that: (i) Barack Hussein Obama, II, is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, §1 of the Constitution and thus is ineligible to be President and (ii) that the “Certificates of Live Birth” released by Mr. Obama are in fact forgeries.  Additionally, I filed a Motion to Expedite Consideration of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.  By these documents, I ask the U.S. Supreme Court to expedite the resolution of my Quo Warranto lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court before the Honorable John D. Bates. Significantly, though eighty-five (85) days have passed since I filed the lawsuit on January 3, 2012, Judge Bates has refused to rule upon any of the pending matters in that suit.


I thus have now forced the Supreme Court to declare whether they will take up the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President or allow the question to be relegated to a judicial process that would not reach the Supreme Court until well after the November 6, 2012, election, let alone before the September 3, 2012, Democratic Convention.


Obama’s eligibility to be President is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.  I have properly invoked the federal statute which authorizes challenges to the eligibility of federal office holders and procedurally have now moved that question from the District Court through the Circuit Court of Appeals and now, with these filings, to the Supreme Court.  If they deny my Petition to expedite resolution of the significant and fairly-posed question of Obama’s eligibility, it is a clear statement that they will refuse to allow that matter to be properly and promptly adjudicated.  In that case, I fear “We the People” will have lost “the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.” Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 130 (1922).  For if the Supreme Court will not take up the issue of whether the Government is being administered according to the rule of law, then the Government is clearly being administered instead by the rule of whim and caprice.


Thus I call upon the Supreme Court to forthwith resolve this heretofore unresolved question: Is Barack Hussein Obama, II, eligible to be President of the United States? 


I would hope you too would make that call upon them by sending the Supreme Court a letter asking they take up and promptly decide the Sibley v. Obama petition.

Read More...

Summary only...

Appeals Court Finds No Need to Hurry On Quo Warranto Suit

When 40 days had gone by without Judge Bates ruling on my Petition for Quo Warranto to test Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be President, I went to the Circuit Court of Appeal and asked them to order Judge Bates to rule one way or the other.  The basis of my request is that the election is now only some 200 days away and this question needs to be settled sooner rather than later.


In response, a three judge panel of the Circuit Court held: “The district court’s delay in ruling on the petition for writ of quo warranto is not so egregious or unreasonable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.”  Really?!


I have gone back to the Circuit Court and asked all thirteen Judges of that Court if they agree that it is not a pressing matter that the President may not be eligible to hold that office.  My Petition for Re-Hearing En Banc or, Alternatively, Panel Rehearing concludes by asking: “What greater question of “public importance” demanding “prompt resolution” can there be than whether the sitting President of the United States is ineligible to serve in that capacity?”


We will see what they say and then it is on to the literal court of last resort . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

The President and his Praetorian Guards

This may seem like a minor thing, but I believe it is worth documenting.  In order to move a lawsuit forward, one must physically served the Court-ordered, Clerk-issued Summons and a copy of the complaint on the Defendant.  In my Quo Warranto lawsuit against Barack Hussein Obama, II, I employed the U.S. Marshal’s service to affect that service.

As can be seen from the Process Receipt and Return, Mr. Obama has ordered his Praetorian Guard to refuse to allow the U.S. Marshal’s service to serve him.  What is Mr. Obama afraid of?  The legal process adjudicating my claim that he is not eligible to be President?

Remember: “Under our system of government, no officer is placed above the restraining authority of the law, which is truly said to be universal in its behests, all paying it homage, the least as feeling its care, and the greatest as not being exempt from its power.”  State ex rel. Whiteman v. Chase, 5 Ohio St. 528, 534 (1856).

Apparently, Mr. Obama believes he is "exempt from [the law's] power" as he can hide behind his guards to avoid the engagement of the “authority of the law”.

Read More...

Summary only...

Why I Don't Trust President Obama

During his campaign for the Presidency in 2007, Candidate Obama made, among other statements related to Medical Marijuana, the following public campaign promises to the electorate:

On August 21, 2007, during a campaign event in Nashua, New Hampshire, Obama was asked by seriously ill Nashua resident Scott Turner if he would end the federal raids on medical marijuana patients like him. Obama replied: “I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It's not a good use of our resources.”

“I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue,” Obama told the Mail Tribune newspaper in Oregon in March, 2007 during the Democratic primary campaign.  He told the newspaper the “basic concept of using medical marijuana for  the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate.”

Obama said: “I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue [of medical marijuana].”

Obama had explicitly stated, "I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana; it is not a good use of our resources.”

Yet Obama has broken these promises. On April 14, 2011, two United States Attorneys wrote a letter to Governor Gregorie of Washington State indicating inter alia that:

“We understand that the proposals being considered by the Legislature would establish a licensing scheme for marijuana growers and dispensaries, and for processors of marijuana-infused foods among other provisions. We have consulted with [Defendant Holder] and the Deputy Attorney General about the proposed legislation. This letter is written to ensure there is no confusion regarding the Department of Justice's view of such a licensing scheme.”

“[W]e maintain the authority to enforce the [Controlled Substances Act] vigorously against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law.  The Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources will continue to be directed toward these objectives.”

“[T]he Department could consider civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who set up marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries as they will be doing so in violation of federal law. Others who knowingly facilitate the actions of the licensees, including property owners, landlords, and financiers should also know that their conduct violates federal law. In addition, state employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington legislative proposals would not be immune from liability under the Controlled Substances Act.”

A copy of the April 14, 2011, letter is attached Exhibit “C” to the Complaint I filed against Obama on the Medical Marijuana issue.

Remarkably, in his Response, Obama -- through his attorneys -- stated: "As a matter of law, any statements or “promises” made by then candidate Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign are simply not enforceable . . .Plaintiff claims that during his campaign “Defendant Obama made certain promises to the American people regarding Medical Marijuana,” and that Defendant Obama broke those promises after he induced the reasonable reliance of Plaintiff to vote for him and pursue licenses to possess and grow medical marijuana.  Yet Plaintiff’s misplaced reliance on President Obama’s political rhetoric does not constitute an enforceable promise . . ."

You decide for yourself, but for me, when someones says the simple declaratory sentences quoted above and then claims that they were just "political rhetoric", well, I say fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Read More...

Summary only...

While Rome burns . . .

After waiting 40 days for Judge Bates to rule upon my Petition for Quo Warranto, I am waiting no longer.  I believe that the issues raised in my Petition -- what is the definition of "natural born Citizen" and has Obama committed wire fraud -- are publici juris of the first order and thus demand immediate judicial attention.

As such, today I have filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus Or, Alternatively, for Writ Procedendum Ad Justicium to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  This petition requests the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to order Judge Bates to rule – one way or another – on my Quo Warranto Petition so that the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court can review that decision. My last case with Judge Bates took 270 days to resolve – a time frame that would put his decision after the November 6, 2012, election and thereby deny appellate and Supreme Court review of the important issues raised in my Quo Warranto Petition.

I suppose it will be another 40 days in the desert for me while I wait for the Court of Appeals to respond.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama Ignores Georgia Subpoena

Though it has garnered little national press attention, there is a trio of petitions in a Georgia Administrative Law court challenging Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot in that state given -- by his own admission -- his lack of "natural born Citizen" status as required by Article II, section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Yesterday, an evidentiary hearing was held in Georgia on that question and neither Obama, ignoring a subpoena, nor his attorney appeared.  The hearing proceeded and evidence was adduced.  The administrative law judge has reserved decision and will at a later date issue his ruling.

What was interesting was the proof presented at the hearing by the petitioners.  An unofficial report of what transpired at the hearing is available here.  In sum, it demonstrates that at least two document experts are of the opinion that Obama's publicly released certificates of live birth are forgeries.

This is, of course, what I have alleged as well.  It is nice to know that I am not the only one who thinks that way and believes that no one -- not even the President -- is above the law.  One of my favorite quotes: “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest,  are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 220, 261 (1882).

Read More...

Summary only...

Playing the War Pipes for Occupy DC

There is a curious collection of people living at McPherson Square in DC which has been given the name “Occupy DC”. On New Year’s Eve, I determined to take a stroll on an unusually warm night down Massachusetts Avenue to DuPont Circle then down to the  the White House.  Once there, around 7:30 p.m., I serenaded the President from the north side of Lafayette Park.  In case you are interested, I played “Going Home”.

I then walked the few blocks to McPherson Square as I hoped a bagpiped version of Aud Lange Syne would be well received by those I may not agree with but certainly respect.  As I got to the middle of the park, there was a meeting going on which evidenced respectful passion on both sides.  Not wanting to disturb the meeting, I continued to the north side of the Park to exit onto “K” street to catch the shuttle to Georgetown where I wanted to play on the Potomac and along the Canal.  The echos in there are great.

But as I tried to leave McPherson square I was approached by several who wanted me to play so I relented and played Scotland the Brave, Green Hills of Tyrol and of course, Aud Lange Syne.  This prompted a response from the meeting group who complained that my sound was disrupting their meeting. What happened next was very Quaker like.   A consensus was quickly reached that I could play one more and the meeting could continue.  Democracy in action.  Maybe Congress should spend a month living in tents on the Mall.  I am sure it would help the process if they were forced to get along. 

I played “Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow” and then caught the shuttle to Georgetown.

Read More...

Summary only...

Flank Attacks

I am not alone in raising a legal challenge to the eligibility of Obama to be President of the United States due to his lack of the requisite "natural born Citizen" status given his Father's British nationality.

In Georgia, a state administrative law judge is entertaining a challenge based upon that same ground.  That case is set for a hearing on January 26, 2012.  One of the plaintiffs in that case has subpoenaed Obama to testify at the hearing and the administrative law judge has denied Obama's motion to quash that subpoena.  That suit has many appellate levels to transit through before any sort of decision would become final.

What I find curious is the procedural and substantive defenses that Obama's attorneys are raising -- and failing to raise. Procedurally, as the order denying the motion to quash the subpoena relates, Obama's counsel failed to cite any legal authority for the position that Obama was too "busy" to attend a hearing. Even first year law students know that attorneys have to give judges some legal basis to support the relief they request.  Moreover, Obama's attorneys have failed to raise the significant issue of "federal preemption" which would eliminate Georgia's jurisdiction over the question of Obama's eligibility.  The legal doctrine of federal preemption flows from the supremacy clause of the Constitution which makes federal law the supreme law of the land.  In federal officer eligibility matters, Congress, by enacting the D.C. Code section under which my law suit travels, has arguably "preempted" state law on that question.

Substantively, Obama's attorneys have raised the remarkably inane argument that by the majority of citizen's electing Obama in 2008, there has been a de facto amendment to the Constitution's "natural born Citizen" clause by the people stating: "further the citizenship issue plaintiff seeks to raise was soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections.” .  Unfortunately for Obama, that was not one of the methods the Framers of our federal system chose to amend our Constitution, so no judge would credit such a bizarre argument.

Read More...

Summary only...

Kill the Messenger so you don't have to hear the Message

Mahatma Ghandi's is reported to have said, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

Here, "they" could not ignore me given the extensive press coverage my campaign announcement and the filing of my lawsuit against Obama has received.  Hence, it is resort to the ad hominem argument in an attempt to get people to ignore what I am saying upon the premise that I have solely base motives of personal gain.  Let me explain.

The media response to my press release has uniformly mis-stated the fact that: "Sibley will also not accept contributions for his campaign. He is instead asking supporters to buy his D.C. Madam book “Why Just Her.”  While it is true that I will not accept campaign contributions, nowhere in my press release or campaign website do I mention my book Why Just Her about the D.C. Madam. (Indeed, talks are underway for Susan Lucci to play Jeane in a movie version which would finally allow the full story behind Jeane's life and death to be told through a docudrama format.)

Instead, I do mention my book the Justicide Brief stating that if anyone wants to help defray the cost of my campaign, they could buy a copy.  (The Justicide Brief -- after tracing the growth of justice from the Magna Charta to the U.S. Constitutions, asserts that justice has been killed by the very forces sworn to protect it.)

Yet ignored by the media is that on the same page, I offer to give the Justicide Brief away for Free!  If my motive for running for President and suing Obama about his eligibility to be President was simply to make money selling the Justicide Brief, why then am I giving it away for free?

More importantly, why this pervasive disinformation campaign? My answer: I  have Obama cornered by my lawsuit and his camp -- along with its compliant mass media -- is resorting to any means possible to stop the inevitable judicial resolution of the seminal question I raise: Is Obama a "natural born Citizen" as the Constitution requires or have we as citizens lost the right to require our government to follow the law upon which it was formed?

Read More...

Summary only...

I Announce Write-In Candidacy for President of the United States and file Quo Warranto suit challenging Obama

I, Montgomery Blair Sibley, scion of the Blair Family whose ancestors first called the anti-slavery Republican Party to order at its preliminary convention at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in February 1856, represented Dred Scott and from whence the Blair House gets its name, announce the commencement of my campaign as a Write-In Candidate for President of the United States. Quixotic as it may appear at first blush, given the vagrancies of the Electoral College system, I could be elected President with only 13% of the nation-wide popular vote cast in 26 select states and the District of Columbia as detailed in the attached chart.

My primary platform is that power has been so concentrated in so few legislative and judicial hands, that the structure of the Federal government created by the Framers of the Constitution has been destroyed thereby destroying the protection of individual rights as well. As to the legislative structure, given that Congress has been unwilling since 1910 to dilute themselves of the power they have, I believe it is time for the States to call a Constitutional Convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the purpose of considering: (i) enfranchising the 600,000 tax-paying, presently disenfranchised District of Columbia residents, (ii) returning to the ideal of one Representative for every 30,000 citizens and (iii) repealing the 17th Amendment and returning election of United States Senators to State Legislatures to ensure proper representation of the interests of the States at the Federal legislative level.

As to the judicial structure, I believe the Rule of Law no longer exists in the federal Courts of the United States as evidenced by: (i) the oxymoron of the Supreme Court’s “discretionary jurisdiction” and the claimed right of the federal court to issue non-binding, unpublished opinions thereby violating equal protection and stare decisis, (ii) the federal grant to the American Bar Association of the status of “gate-keeper” of how law will be taught and who may become lawyers and (iii) the refusal to recognize those “retained” and “reserved” common law rights resident respectively in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Among those “retained” and “reserved” common law rights is: “the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not Wasted.” Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 130 (1922). Accordingly, I have filed this day in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a Quo Warranto suit seeking to oust Barrack Hussein Obama II as President of the United States and/or preventing him from holding the franchise of being on the ballot for that office on November 6, 2012, insomuch as he is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, §1, of the U.S. Constitution. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, that phrase was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (The Law of Nations, Emerich de Vattel, 1758, Chapter 19, § 212). Notably, there are thus two plain requirements: being born (i) in the United States and (ii) of two parents, both of whom must be United States citizens.

Significantly, Congress exercised its authority to expand the definition of “natural born Citizen” in the Act of 1790 stating: “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” 1 Stat. 104. Notably, Congress subsequently removed the legal-term-of-art “natural born Citizen” from all citizenship statutes post-1790 and now only confers “citizenship”. See: 8 U.S.C. §1401 – “Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”, “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth . . . “.

Barrack Hussein Obama, II has represented that he is the son of a non-citizen of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who was a citizen of the United Kingdom in 1961. Accordingly, upon the law and facts, Barack Hussein Obama, II is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully” holds – and seeks again to be elected to – the office of President of the United States.

Moreover, even allowing for an in futuro judicially-by-fiat-created definition of “natural born Citizen” to include one born within the United States to only one United States citizen parent, the significant questions concerning the location of the birth of Barrack Hussein Obama, II raised by his publicly released “Certificates of Live Birth” would nonetheless challenge his eligibility to be President of the United States. A detailed analysis of the apparent tampering with Barrack Hussein Obama, II’s putative “Certificates of Live Birth” is contained in the Quo Warranto lawsuit.

As to the “Why” I am seeking the office of President – despite the public abuse I knowingly am courting – my answer is the same as when I ran for District Attorney in Rochester, New York, in 1987 and is best summed up in Edmund Burke’s observation – “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Here, that “evil” is the departure from the Rule of Law which I have sworn to uphold, an oath I obviously takes seriously.

Read More...

Summary only...