Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Montgomery Blair Sibley, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Supreme Court ^ | April 4, 2012 | Sibley

Posted on 04/06/2012 2:28:16 PM PDT by plenipotentiary

No. 11-1185 Title: Montgomery Blair Sibley, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia Docketed: March 29, 2012 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Case Nos.: (12-5040) Decision Date: March 6, 2012

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mar 28 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 30, 2012) Mar 28 2012 Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by petitioner. Apr 4 2012 Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 20, 2012.

(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: constitution; impeachment; obama; sibley
Fate of the Republic to be Decided April 20th http://amoprobos.blogspot.co.uk/
1 posted on 04/06/2012 2:28:30 PM PDT by plenipotentiary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary

What’s this about?


2 posted on 04/06/2012 2:36:12 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary

Can someone translate?


3 posted on 04/06/2012 2:40:33 PM PDT by And2TheRepublic (People like freedom of speech, but only when it's sweet to their ears.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

its about Obamas eligibility

http://www.montgomeryblairsibley.com/library/SCOTUSPetition.pdf


4 posted on 04/06/2012 2:42:13 PM PDT by Breto (The Establishment party is killing our country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: And2TheRepublic; SandyInSeattle
"....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.

http://amoprobos.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/i-force-supreme-court-to-rule-on-obamas.html
5 posted on 04/06/2012 2:46:27 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary

Oh! Thank you.


6 posted on 04/06/2012 2:48:38 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary

NO WAY!!!!
WooooHoooo!!!!


7 posted on 04/06/2012 3:12:49 PM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary

I wonder if this guy is any relation to Montgomery Blair from Maryland, who was Postmaster General under Lincoln. His brother Francis Preston Blair, Jr. represented Missouri in both the House and later, the Senate. He resigned from the House of Representatives in 1862, after being appointed commander of Missouri volunteers. I wonder if it’s possible that sometime after the war, a Blair off-spring married a relation of General Henry Sibley? Just a thought.


8 posted on 04/06/2012 3:28:43 PM PDT by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary

Sometimes you just have to laugh at folks.


9 posted on 04/06/2012 3:42:13 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Breto
its about Obamas eligibility

Not really.

Obama's eligibility isn't even an issue in the Petition, much as Sibley would like it to be.

Sibley filed a quo warranto action in the U.S. district court in D.C. to challenge Obama's eligibility. (Other cases in the D.C. district have previously ruled that you can't challenge the President's eligibility via quo warranto, but leave that issue aside for the moment).

The district court hasn't ruled yet on Sibley's lawsuit, so there's nothing he can appeal.

Sibley tried to file an appeal to the D.C. Circuit to get them to order the district judge to hurry up and rule on the case; the D.C. Circuit refused to order the district judge to rule. Sibley filed a cert. petition asking SCOTUS to review that ruling but, under SCOTUS rules, no response to his cert. petition is even due until April 30. So Sibley has now made a motion to SCOTUS to speed up his cert. petition.

So Obama's eligibility isn't before SCOTUS. What is before SCOTUS is a motion to speed up his appeal from an order refusing to speed up a case which hasn't ruled on Obama's eligibility.

Even if Sibley wins everything he could (and there is no way SCOTUS is going to touch this), all he could get would be an order to the lower courts to move his case a little faster.

10 posted on 04/06/2012 3:43:46 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

You and your bucket of cold water.


11 posted on 04/06/2012 3:47:51 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Funny. You say Sibley’s case is not about eligibility, and in the next sentence say it is.

Sibley’s case is that the DC Court won’t answer his claim. I imagine that they can’t rule he doesn’t have standing etc, so they have only non compliance with their own Court timescales.

Lastly, we have the Supremes. If they don’t hear this and rule O’nobody a usurper, you will know your “liberty” is a figment of your imagination.


12 posted on 04/06/2012 4:05:39 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
Funny. You say Sibley’s case is not about eligibility, and in the next sentence say it is.

His district court case is about eligibility. His SCOTUS case is about whether the D.C. Circuit should have ordered the district court to rule faster.

Sibley’s case is that the DC Court won’t answer his claim. I imagine that they can’t rule he doesn’t have standing etc,

When the court gets around to it, that's what it will rule. There have been several prior attempts to challenge Obama's eligibility via quo warranto.

so they have only non compliance with their own Court timescales.

Which rule has the district court not complied with? Please be specific.

Lastly, we have the Supremes. If they don’t hear this and rule O’nobody a usurper,

That issue is not before SCOTUS. The motion before SCOTUS is to shorten time for SCOTUS to rule on his case, which itself only raises the issue of whether the lower courts should have moved faster. Because the lower courts never ruled either way on the eligibility issue, SCOTUS cannot review that issue.

you will know your “liberty” is a figment of your imagination.

My liberty is perfectly intact. I will use it to remove Obama from office the constitutional way-- I'm going to vote against him.

13 posted on 04/06/2012 4:29:42 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Breto

This has “teeth”.. like to see what happens


14 posted on 04/06/2012 4:48:07 PM PDT by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

If you can’t by judicial process remove an illegal occupant from the US Presidency, you are no longer a free person. The electorate may well vote in the Usurper again, but that will not make him a lawful President.


15 posted on 04/06/2012 5:08:13 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Click

16 posted on 04/06/2012 5:27:45 PM PDT by RedMDer (https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=93)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
If you can’t by judicial process remove an illegal occupant from the US Presidency, you are no longer a free person.

If we no longer follow the Constitution, we are no longer free people.

The Constitution permits Congress to remove a sitting President, but grants no such power to the Courts.

The Constitution also gives Congress the power to determine the eligibility of a President when the electoral votes are counted, but no one in Congress objected to Obama in 2009.

The Courts can remove an ineligible candidate from the ballot before an election, but no one tried that route in 2008 (or at least no one who filed in the right court at the right time.) There have been several such suits filed so far this year, and I expect there to be more.

To get back to the posted article, one guy who doesn't have a clue about court procedure filed the wrong suit at the wrong time in the wrong court and didn't get a ruling according to his own self-decreed time schedule. He is now asking SCOTUS to re-write its own rules about how fast it hears cases so it can hear his appeal from the D.C. Circuit's refusal to force the district court to hew to Sibley's schedule. Forgive me if I don't think the 100% guaranteed denial of his motion somehow spells the end of the Republic.

17 posted on 04/06/2012 8:21:12 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The Courts are specially empowered under the16 D.C.Code Secs. 3501-3503 in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia to remove a usurper under the heading of Quo Warranto, which means by what authority or power.

Quo warranto:

"Currently the former procedure has been replaced by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, an extraordinary remedy by which a prosecuting attorney, who represents the public at large, challenges someone who has usurped a public office or someone who, through abuse or neglect, has forfeited an office to which she was entitled. In spite of the fact that the remedy of quo warranto is pursued by a prosecuting attorney in a majority of jurisdictions, it is ordinarily regarded as a civil rather than criminal action. Quo warranto is often the only proper legal remedy; however, the legislature can enact legislation or provide other forms of relief."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Quo+warranto

"This procedure starts by requiring that the quo warranto issue in the name of the United States. It compels a concerned citizen to apply to the Attorney General or the United States Attorney to bring the action on his behalf in the District Court for the District of Columbia (16 D.C. Code Secs. 3501-3502. These officials have broad discretion. It is not realistic that they would file a quo warranto action in the name of the United States against a sitting putative President, their own boss and the same person who appointed them. It is also unrealistic that they would file such an action in a case in which among the list of defendants are the United States itself along with the U.S. Congress, Senate, and House of Representatives. Even appointing a special prosecutor would present a problem, for who would appoint him or her? We have already seen how the Executive and Congressional branches of government are both defending Obama’s stance that he is constitutionally eligible to be President. Especially shocking is how the Justice Department has taken the side of Obama rather than support and defend the Constitution and support the plaintiffs who argue that he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore not eligible for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. How does Mr. Donofrio expect to get any cooperation from either of these two branches of government which he would need to sanction and support his quo warranto action?

It is true that the DC statute provides a private litigant with a mechanism by which he can still bring the quo warranto action even if the government refuses to do so. But if these government officials refuse to institute a quo warranto proceeding as they have thus far so demonstrated, only an “interested person” may petition the court for leave to have the writ issued in the name of the United States on the relation of the “interested person.” 16 D.C. Code Sec. 3503. At common law, a private person had no such right to bring the quo warranto action and this DC statute is the only statute passed by Congress that permits such a procedure. Blackburn v. O’Brien, 289 F.Supp. 289 (D.C.W.D.Va. 1968). Nevertheless, the court has broad discretion to deny the writ. Under the standard for being an “interested person” as pronounced by Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915), in a case involving a public office one would have to have “an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself…” and be filing an action against another who allegedly usurped that office."

http://puzo1.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/quo-warranto-and-kerchner-v-obama-and.html
18 posted on 04/07/2012 1:28:33 AM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
Under the standard for being an “interested person” as pronounced by Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915), in a case involving a public office one would have to have “an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself…” and be filing an action against another who allegedly usurped that office."

Exactly. John McCain has standing; Sibley doesn't.

19 posted on 04/07/2012 8:27:52 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
But he does have standing....

"Petitioner – a citizen of the United States and a Registered Write-In Candidate for President of the United States..."

http://www.montgomeryblairsibley.com/library/SCOTUSPetition.pdf


20 posted on 04/07/2012 9:28:24 AM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary

LOL— I read it 3 times- i see no reason for him to not have standing- I think he is gonna win this one— i really do.


21 posted on 04/07/2012 1:17:47 PM PDT by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: chicken head
LOL— I read it 3 times- i see no reason for him to not have standing-

He is not (1) the Attorney General, or (2) the U.S. Attorney, or (3) the person who would become President if Obama were disqualified. No one else has standing under the quo warranto statute.

I think he is gonna win this one— i really do.

Given the fact that several other quo warranto suits against Obama have been dismissed by the D.C. District Court, I'll bet you $10,000.00 he loses, and I'll give you 2-1 odds.

22 posted on 04/07/2012 4:19:23 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

the others have been dismissed because of standing- why wouldnt he have standing running as a write in canidate?- i’m not gonna bet cause you could be right, but im hopeing he has standing on this issue..


23 posted on 04/07/2012 4:54:16 PM PDT by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: chicken head
the others have been dismissed because of standing- why wouldnt he have standing running as a write in canidate?-

Anyone can say they're a "write in candidate." But even if he were Mitt Romney he wouldn't have standing for quo warranto (as distinguished from a ballot challenge, where any candidate on the general election ballot or any candidate on a Democratic primary ballot would have standing). To have standing to bring a quo warranto suit, you have to be the person who would hold the office if the incumbent were disqualified. That would have been John McCain before January 20, 2009; today, it's Joe Biden. No one else has quo warranto standing (except the U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General).

i’m not gonna bet cause you could be right, but im hopeing he has standing on this issue.

I'll give you 10 to 1 odds; my $10,000 against your $1,000.00. We'll place our money in escrow with any Freeper we mutually agree on.

24 posted on 04/07/2012 6:38:20 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Sibley is a registered write in candidate, and as such is an interested person.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/238/537/case.html

If that is not sufficient to make him an interested person, then at the point a single person fills in a ballot for Sibley, he is certainly unique in his interest.
25 posted on 04/07/2012 11:02:38 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary

Apr 4 2012 Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 20, 2012.
Apr 23 2012 Motion to expedite consideration filed by petitioner DENIED.


26 posted on 04/24/2012 4:16:09 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Mar 28 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 30, 2012)


27 posted on 04/25/2012 1:56:53 AM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary

Jun 4 2012 Petition DENIED.


28 posted on 06/04/2012 4:38:24 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Reason?


29 posted on 06/05/2012 3:24:23 AM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
As is typical when the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, none was given.

There were no recorded dissents.

30 posted on 06/05/2012 6:00:18 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson