Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/113922071/Montgomery-Blair-Sibley-s-memo-and-dismissal-of-June-2012-lawsuit-against-President-Obama
Timestamp: 2015-08-30 21:26:26
Document Index: 617711586

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§3331', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1']

P. 1Montgomery Blair Sibley's memo and dismissal of June 2012 lawsuit against President ObamaMontgomery Blair Sibley's memo and dismissal of June 2012 lawsuit against President ObamaRatings: (0)|Views: 7,292|Likes: 1Published by Benjamin FreedMontgomery Blair Sibley's memo and dismissal of June 2012 lawsuit against President ObamaMontgomery Blair Sibley's memo and dismissal of June 2012 lawsuit against President ObamaMore info:Categories:Types, Business/LawPublished by: Benjamin Freed on Nov 20, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/113922071/Montgomery-Blair-Sibley-s-memo-and-dismissal-of-June-2012-lawsuit-against-President-Obama12/23/2012pdftextoriginal Page 1 of 6
M EMORANDUM To:Undisclosed RecipientsFrom:Montgomery Blair Sibley (mbsibley@gmail.com)Date:November 8, 2012Re:
– Addressing ArmageddonThe window to challenge Obama’s eligibility to be President is rapidly closing. Once he issworn-in on January 20, 2013, the Courts will likely – though incorrectly – rule that only Congresscan remove him. That way, the Courts avoid having to do their unpleasant duty.I believe that am the sole individual now positioned and willing to seriously challengeObama’s eligibility. I have one suit pending and three more waiting to be filed. I need financial andlogistical support however to proceed. Hence this memo, litigation plan and budget.
S IBLEY VS O
BAMA ET AL
.:12-5198
Sibley vs Obama et al,
is a quo warranto case which seeks to test the eligibility of Obama to be president and for an order allowing evidence of Obama’s alleged wire-fraud to be submitted tothe Grand Jury. The federal District Court dismissed that suit on June 6, 2012, a copy of that order is attached. I have appealed that dismissal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The judges of that Court have entered orders: (i) refusing to expedite the appeal and (ii)delaying briefing on the appeal for an indefinite period. Obama has moved to summarily affirm thedismissal of the suit which motion is now fully briefed and pending before the Circuit Court.I expect the motion to summarily affirm to be granted. Then I will have 90 days to file a petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court.
IBLEY V
Sibley v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics
, Case No.:12-AA-1498, Iagain went to the D.C. Court of Appeals seeking an order directing the BOEE to take up my Requestto investigate Obama’s eligibility. Remarkably, the D.C. Court of Appeals dismissed that case theday after BOEE filed its motion to dismiss and before I had received the motion to dismiss.I have taken that dismissal to the United States Supreme Court where it pends at Case No.:12-467.
II Given the results of the November 6, 2012, election, I am prepared to file a new
action upon the authority of the District Court’s holding in
Sibley v. Obama, et al , in which
Page 2 of 6the Court denied me standing stating:Self-declaration as a write-in candidate in the upcoming presidentialelection does not enable plaintiff to challenge President Obama's present position. A public official's title to office is an injury particularized to an individual only if that individual has "an interestin the office itself' - if he or she sought the office at the same time asthe current officeholder. . . .
Since Sibley was not a candidate in the2008 presidential election, the injury he faces from PresidentObama's current tenure in office is generalized
. It seek[s] relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the publicat large [, so] does not state an Article III case or controversy. . . . TheCourt will dismiss plaintiffs claim for lack of standing, because thedefect of standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction.Here, I was officially “a candidate in the [2012] presidential election” and thus by the Court’s ownorder will have – and indeed, am the only person who has – “standing” and is presently willing tochallenge Obama’s eligibility. The suit has obstacles including the necessity for the AttorneyGeneral to “refuse” to prosecute the
action as a condition precedent to my havingstanding to commence the action myself. However, at some point, the Attorney General’s refusalto file or not file the
action must – under the doctrine of waiver – allow me to proceed.In all events, that bridge can be crossed when I come to it.
IBLEY VS
LEXANDER ,
IGHTFOOT
Under the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, Washington D.C. gets three electoral voteseven though it has no senators or representatives. In September, the D.C. Democratic Party namedCity Council member Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7), attorney and longtime Democratic Party activistDon Dinan, and former City Council member William Lightfoot (D-At-Large) to serve as Obama’sD.C. electors.Under DC ST § 1-1001.08(g) “Each person elected as elector of President and Vice Presidentshall, in the presence of the Board, take an oath or solemnly affirm that he or she will vote for thecandidates of the party he or she has been nominated to represent, and it shall be his or her duty tovote in such manner in the electoral college
”Yet each of these three electors have also taken an oath – as public servants and/or attorneys – to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign anddomestic; that
; that I take this obligation freely,without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully dischargethe duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God
5 U.S.C. §3331.Thus, presented with the conflict between their two oaths – after being apprised of the
Page 3 of 6ineligibility of Obama to serve as President – each of the electors must refuse to discharge their duties. This argument allows to a lawsuit to enjoin them based upon this rational from casting their votes for Obama.Moreover, I would make these three as class representatives of all the electors who wouldvote for Obama. The end result is a platform to highlight the ineligibility of Obama to serve asPresident.
Last, I have the standing to invoke the Congressionally-authorized mechanism to challengeObama’s eligibility. Under D.C. Code §1-1001.11(b):(1)Within 7 days after the Board certifies the results of anelection, any person who voted in the election may petition theDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals to review the election.(2) In response to such a petition, the Court may set aside theresults certified and declare the true results of the election, or void theelection in whole or in part. . . .The Court shall void an election onlyif it: (A) Determines that
the candidate certified as the winner of the election does not meet the qualifications required for office
;or Accordingly, as a person who indeed did “vote in the election”, I have standing to petitionunder D.C. Code §1-1001.11(b) and force the D.C. Court of Appeals to address both the questionof Obama’s lack of legal “natural born Citizen” status and the apparent-to-me fraudulent COLB.Either result is dependant upon a “determination” or “finding” of fact. This will implicate thenecessity for immediate access to both legal and document experts to present sworn testimony in theoriginal complaint which demonstrates the legal ineligibility of Obama and the preponderance of evidence that the COLB is a forgery.
,770 A.2d 79 (DC Court of Appeals, 2001). (“We hold that a petition brought pursuant to[§1-1001.11(b)] must contain a concise statement of claims and must identify facts showing anentitlement to relief.”).Additionally, I will be asking for a special master to be appointed to marshal the facts andlaw.
Scolaro v. District Of Columbia Board Of Elections & Ethics,
717 A.2d 891 (DC Court of Appeals, 1998)(“We entertain this petition, and referred the case to a special master, under thespecial jurisdictional grant of D.C. Code [§1-1001.11(b)], which authorizes the court, upon request by a voter, to review an election and either set aside the certified result and declare the "true result,"or void the election in whole or in part.”)Finally, there is substantial precedent to permit compulsory discovery of evidence to support
Activity (2)FiltersAdd to collectionReviewAdd NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred readsObamaRelease YourRecords liked thisLoad more