Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/110484086/D-C-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Reaches-Supreme-Court
Timestamp: 2017-03-23 23:26:24
Document Index: 629908085

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1257', '§2', '§11', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§1', '§2', '§1', '§ 2', '§1']

D.C. Obama Ballot Challenge Reaches Supreme Court | Supreme Court Of Virginia | Motion In United States Law
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin-i-
Questions Presented For Review On September 10, 2012, Petitioner, Montgomery Blair Sibley filed an original jurisdiction petition with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. On September 17, 2012, the Respondent in that action filed its Motion to Dismiss that Petition. The following day, on September 18, 2012, before Petitioner had received – let alone replied – to the Motion to Dismiss, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed, relied upon and then granted Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, presented for review are the following questions: WHETHER, the arbitrary refusal of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to “hear” Petitioner in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss before granting that Motion was a denial of a meaningful hearing before an impartial tribunal and, therefore, a denial of due process in the constitutional sense. WHETHER, this Court is to permit – nay encourage – the continued erosion by the lower courts of the fundamental right of audi alteram partem by denying Certiorari in this matter.
Table of Contents Questions Presented for Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Opinions below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Constitutional Provisions, Treaties, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations Involved . . . . . 2 Statement of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Reasons for Granting the Writ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 I. There Must Be a Remedy to a Court That Refuses to “Hear” Before Deciding .................................... 7 This Court Must Rule upon the Permissible Scope, if Any, of Sua Sponte Dismissals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Contents of Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix-1 The September 18, 2012, order . . Appendix-2 The October 2, 2012, order . . . . . Appendix-4
Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . 9 Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) . . . . . . 5, 9 Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006) . . . . . . . . 8 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,
544 U.S. 280 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955) . . . . . . . . . . 7 Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 (1939) . . . . . . . . . . 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) . . . . . . . . 8 Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) . . . . . . . . . 7 Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) . . . . . . . 10
Other Authorities William Howard Taft, Three Needed Steps of Progress, 8 American Bar Association Journal 36 (Jan. 1922) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Petitioner, Montgomery Blair Sibley (“Sibley”), prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the orders of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) entered on September 18, 2012, and October 2, 2012. If this Court is going to keep the promise of Chief Justice Taft made in 1922 to Congress in support of the “Justice Bill” which established the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court that: “the most careful consideration,” would be given to each matter and only “frivolous” cases or cases addressed to principals of law that were “well settled” would be summarily denied, then review is mandated as the Court of Appeals: (i) decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court under its supervisory authority, and (ii) has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. Opinions Below The September 18, 2012, order is attached to the Appendix hereto, Appendix-2. The October 2, 2012, order is attached to the Appendix hereto, Appendix-4.
Jurisdiction The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Article III and the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. §1257. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals was invoked pursuant D.C. Code §2-510 and §11-722. Constitutional Provisions, Treaties, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations Involved D.C. Code §2-510(a) states in pertinent part: “Any person suffering a legal wrong, or adversely affected or aggrieved, by an order or decision of the Mayor or an agency in a contested case, is entitled to a judicial review thereof in accordance with this subchapter upon filing in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals a written petition for review.” D.C. Code §2-502(8) defines “contested case” as: “a proceeding before the Mayor or any agency in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by any law (other than this subchapter), or by constitutional right, to be determined after a hearing before the Mayor or before an agency . . .”. Statement of the Case On November 11, 2011, Sibley formally announced his candidacy for the Office of President and qualified as a Write-In candidate for that Office by filing with the District of Columbia Board of
Elections and Ethics (“BOEE”) his “Affirmation of Write-In Candidacy”. On April 18, 2012, Sibley filed a Petition with the Court of Appeals seeking review of: (i) the January 9, 2012, BOEE written determination that Barack Hussein Obama, II (“Obama”) had met the qualifications to appear on the Democratic Party primary ballot for the Office of President of the United States and (ii) the April 18, 2012, BOEE written determination that Obama was eligible to appear on the November 6, 2012, ballot for President of the United States. That suit was assigned Case No.: 12-AA-516. On May 29, 2012, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in Case No.: 12-AA-516 holding in pertinent part: (i) “Any petition for review from a purported order dated January 9, 2012, was untimely. . . . As to the April 18, 2012 certification that President Barack Obama won the Democratic Primary, petitioner did not vote in the primary and therefore, he is barred from seeking review with this court.” In the interim, on April 19, 2012, Sibley, both as a voter in the District of Columbia and a candidate for President served on BOEE a written request (“Request”) that BOEE review the qualification of Obama to be eligible to be President and thus on the ballot for the November 6, 2012, election. That Request was accompanied by substantial and competent evidence that Obama was not a “natural
born Citizen” and that his publicly proffered Certificate of Live Birth was a forgery. As BOEE had not responded to that Request by September 10, 2012, Sibley filed a second Petition with the Court of Appeals. That Petition was assigned Case No.: 12-AA-1498. In distinction to Case No.: 12-AA-516, the Petition in Case No.: 12-AA-1498 sought resolution by the Court of Appeals of Sibley’s constitutional right – both as a voter and qualified Write-In candidate in the November 6, 2012, Presidential election – to have an election free of “the taint of fraud”. In particular, Sibley raised under the authority of D.C. Code §2-510(a) the first impression question of whether the BOEE denied Sibley’s due process property rights as a voter and candidate when it refused to review the substantial evidence Sibley presented to BOEE that Obama was ineligible under Article II, §1, of the U.S. Constitution to be on the November 6, 2012, general election ballot as the Democratic candidate for President. Contemporaneously with the filing of the Petition, Sibley filed a motion to expedite and for oral argument. On September 17, 2012, the BOEE filed its Motion to Dismiss the Petition in Case No.: 12-AA-1498. The following day, September 18, 2012, before Sibley had received or replied to the Motion to Dismiss, the Court of Appeals denied Sibley’s motion to expedite and for oral argument and then – explicitly relying upon the arguments contained in BOEE’s Motion to Dismiss – dismissed the Petition stating: “[R]espondent’s motion to dismiss is granted as this
court has jurisdiction to hear only contested case agency appeals. See D.C. Code §2-510 (2001). Additionally, any petition for review from purported orders dated January 9, 2012, and April 18, 2012, is untimely. Further, petitioner did not challenge the validity of the nominating petition. See 3 § DCMR 1404. Moreover, petitioner did not vote in the primary election and therefore he is barred from seeking review in this court of the April 18, 2012, certification that President Barack Obama won the Democratic Primary. See D.C. Code §1-1001.11(b)(l)(2011).” Appendix-2. In response, Sibley filed on September 25, 2012, his Motion to Vacate the September 18, 2012, order and to disqualify the Panel, or alternatively, for reconsideration of the order granting the motion to dismiss. In that Motion, Sibley pointed out that he was raising in Case No.: 12-AA-1498 an issue not raised in Case No.:12-AA-516, to wit; whether Sibley had a constitutional right to a “hearing” arising from the property right that Sibley enjoyed both as a voter and qualified candidate. As to the former, Sibley argued that “right” flows from the constitutional “right to cast a ballot in an election free from the taint of intimidation and fraud.” Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 211 (1992). As to the latter, Sibley as a candidate in a republican form of government claimed that he has the property “right” to face only eligible candidates against whom he has to compete for the public’s vote. On October 2, 2012, the Court of Appeals
denied Sibley’s motion to vacate, disqualify and for reconsideration stating: “Based on the facts alleged by petitioner, no reasonable observer could question this panel's impartiality. See: Kreuzer v. George Washington Univ., 896 A.2d 238,249-50 (D.C. 2006); York v. United States, 785 A.2d 651, 655 (D.C. 2001). Additionally, this court has the authority to decide its own jurisdiction sua sponte or by motion. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied because this court previously considered and rejected all of petitioner’s arguments in his petition for review and alternative request for petition for writ of mandamus.” Appendix-4. Reasons for Granting the Writ The first compelling reason for granting this Writ is to secure a remedy for a patent breach of the fundamental right to an impartial tribunal that “hears” before it “decides” – something the Court of Appeals has clearly ignored. Alternatively, to deny this writ is to condone this grotesque emasculation of the fundamental right of audi alteram partem and thereby render void the fundamental compact between the People and their government upon which American Jurisprudence is grounded. The second compelling reason for granting this Writ is to establish the permissible scope, if any, of sua sponte dismissals. Such a determination is necessary to prevent the denial of access to court such a dismissal creates when courts – such as the Court of Appeals here – abuse that authority by refusing to
allow a hearing prior to a sua sponte dismissal. I. There Must Be a Remedy to a Court That Refuses to “Hear” Before Deciding
It is beyond dispute that “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). Likewise, in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) this Court stated: “If in any case, civil or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party . . . it reasonably may not be doubted that such a refusal would be a denial of a hearing, and, therefore, of due process in the constitutional sense.” Id. at 69. “Moreover, even if there is no showing of actual bias in the tribunal, this Court has held that due process is denied by circumstances that create the likelihood or the appearance of bias.” Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 (1972). Here, by arbitrarily refusing to “hear” Sibley before ruling on BOEE’s Motion to Dismiss, the “impartiality” of the Court of Appeals most certainly creates “the appearance of bias” in favor of BOEE. Accordingly, in order to insure that the “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal” remains “a basic requirement of due process”, this Court must act decisively to secure that right by providing the remedy of granting
the prayed for Writ in this matter. II. This Court Must Rule upon the Permissible Scope, if Any, of Sua Sponte Dismissals
to any authority, the Court of Appeals in their order of October 2, 2012, stated: “Additionally, this court has the authority to decide its own jurisdiction sua sponte.” Appendix-4. Notably, in its Order of September 18, 2012, the Court of Appeals made no mention of its dismissal being sua sponte, instead expressly relying upon BOEE’s motion to dismiss. Significantly, this Court has not had “occasion to pass judgment, however, on the permissible scope, if any, of sua sponte dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6).” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). Nonetheless, subsequent to Neitzke, in an analogous area, this Court made clear that: “In sum, we hold that district courts are permitted, but not obliged, to consider, sua sponte, the timeliness of a state prisoner’s habeas petition. . . . Of course, before acting on its own initiative, a court must accord the parties fair notice and an opportunity to present their positions.” Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209 (2006)(Emphasis added). Here, acting ex post facto sua sponte, the Court of Appeals did not accord Sibley an opportunity to “present” his position. If they had, the presumption and plain error of the Court of Appeals concluding
Ex post facto and ex cathedra without citation
that “this court previously considered and rejected all of petitioner’s arguments in his petition for review” would be shown to be simply wrong. Appendix-4. If the Court of Appeals is referring to their decision in Case No.: 12-AA-519, Sibley never raised the issue of the constitutional right of a voter and/or candidate to an election free “from frivolous or fraudulent candidacies” Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972) and to “cast a ballot in an election free from the taint of intimidation and fraud.” Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992). Indeed, the issue in Case No.: 12-AA-519 solely dealt with review of BOEE’s January 9, 2012, and April 18, 2012, written decisions. Alternatively, if the Court of Appeals is referring to Case No.: 12-AA-1498, such a holding is inane: Sibley never was given the opportunity to present any arguments in opposition to BOEE’s Motion to Dismiss, hence the Court of Appeals is simply prevaricating when it holds that it “considered and rejected” such arguments. Appendix-4. Either way, Sibley’s fundamental right to audi alteram partem has been eviscerated because this Court has left the scope of sua sponte dismissals undefined. Thus, as with the harm the improper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine caused – which resulted in thousands losing access to federal court while this Court waited decades to rein-in the lower courts’ abuse of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine – the lower courts’ unchecked use of sua sponte
dismissals have resulted in such dismissals being “construed to extend far beyond the contours” of the binding restrictions of audi alteram partem resulting – as with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine – in multitudes being denied their right to access court. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005). Accordingly, as sua sponte dismissals are clearly being abused and in order to give guidance to the lower courts when, if at all, sua sponte dismissals are permissible, this Court must grant this Petition to determine that scope. Conclusion As this Court has often noted, “constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be . . . indirectly denied.” Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 664 (1944). The Constitution “nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes” of infringing on constitutional protections. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275 (1939). This Petition presents this Court with the sole remedy available to Petitioner to prevent the infringment of his constitutional rights to an impartial tribunal and audi alteram partem. Therefore, in so much as this case raises matters that are neither “frivolous” nor addressed to principals of law that are “well settled”, this Court is obligated to grant this Petition or breach Chief Justice
Taft’s promise to Congress and the Citizens of these United States when this Court was granted certiorari jurisdiction.1 Montgomery Blair Sibley Petitioner 4000 Massachusetts Ave, N.W. Suite #1518 Washington, D.C. 20016
1 William Howard Taft, Three Needed Steps of Progress, 8 American Bar Association Journal 36 (Jan. 1922).
Appendix-1 Contents of Appendix Opinions Below The September 18, 2012, order . . . . Appendix-2 The October 2, 2012, order . . . . . . . Appendix-4
Appendix-2 District of Columbia Court of Appeals NO. 12-AA-1498 September 18, 2012 MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, Respondent. _____________________________________/ BEFORE: Oberly and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Steadman, Senior Judge. ORDER On consideration of the petition for review, wherein it appears petitioner makes an alternative request for a petition for writ of mandamus, petitioner's motion to expedite and for oral argument, and respondent's motion to dismiss, it is ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss is granted as this court has jurisdiction to hear only contested case agency appeals. See D.C. Code § 2-510 (2001). Additionally, any petition for review from purported orders dated January 9, 2012, and April 18,
Appendix-3 2012, is untimely. Further, petitioner did not challenge the validity of the nominating petition. See 3 § DCMR 1404. Moreover, petitioner did not vote in the primary election and therefore he is barred from seeking review in this court of the April 18, 2012, certification that President Barack Obama won the Democratic Primary. See D.C. Code §1-1001.11(b)(l)(2011). It is FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion to expedite and for oral argument is denied as moot. It is FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's alternative request for a petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See: In re MO.R., 851 A.2d 503, 509 (D.C. 2004); Banov v. Kennedy, 694 A.2d 850,857 (D.C.1997). PER CURIAM
Appendix-4 District of Columbia Court of Appeals NO. 12-AA-1498 October 2, 2012 MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, Petitioner. vs. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, Respondent. ______________________________________/ BEFORE: Oberly and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Steadman, Senior Judge. ORDER On consideration of petitioner’s motion to vacate and disqualify the panel, or, alternatively, for reconsideration of this court's September 18, 2012, order granting respondent's motion to dismiss, it is ORDERED that the motion to vacate and disqualify the panel is denied. Based on the facts alleged by petitioner, no reasonable observer could question this panel's impartiality. See: Kreuzer v. George Washington Univ., 896 A.2d 238,249-50 (D.C. 2006); York v. United States, 785 A.2d 651, 655 (D.C.
Appendix-5 2001). Additionally, this court has the authority to decide its own jurisdiction sua sponte or by motion. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied because this court previously considered and rejected all of petitioner’s arguments in his petition for review and alternative request for petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM
More From This UserSkip carouselObama Never Vetted Chapter 1 - Working CopyAppeal ExhibitDunham Passport Foia Records Reduced RedactedGrinols et al vs. Electoral College, Obama et alOsama Bin Laden Burial Department of Defense EmailsOnaka FilingObama White House Birth Certificate ScribdMinor v Happersett Defines Natural Born Citizen - Born in U.S. to Citizen Parents - that's bothFull of Lies Congressional Research Report on Natural Born CitizenFair v Obama Maryland Obama Ballot Challenge OrderTisdale v Obama EDVA Memorandum of Law to Support Plaintiff's ComplaintTisdale-v-Obama-EDVA -COMPLAINTTisdale-v-Obama ORDERObama Georgia Ballot Challenge DismissalObama New Jersey Ballot Challenge DismissalFlorida Obama Ballot Challenge Natural Born Citizen BriefVoeltz v Obama DismissalCongressmen and President By Extension Can Be Incarcerated Intelligence Community Directive 704Obama Illinois Attorney RegistrationQuestionnaire For National Security Positions (Standard Form 86)Security Clearance Manual By The Federal Office of Personnel ManagementHawaii Failed to Verify Obama Birth Certificate - Klayman LetterObama Illinois Election Fraud Complaint
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulD.C. Obama Ballot Challenge Reaches Supreme Court by Pamela Barnett0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadInterests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedTisdale v Obama EDVA Memorandum of Law to Support Plaintiff's Complaintby Pamela BarnettFair v Obama - Maryland Obama Ballot Challenge Decision - 8/27/2012by ObamaRelease YourRecordsDeclaration on Obama Ineligibility for the U.S. Presidencyby George MillerVoeltz v Obama - Newly Found Case Authority Notice - Florida Obama Electoral Challenge - 12/31/2012 by ObamaRelease YourRecordsObama Fails E-Verify - Proof He Stole SSNby Pamela BarnettAlexander v. USA - Document No. 2by Justia.comUnited States v. Betty Strickland, 4th Cir. (2012)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Busby, 10th Cir. (2009)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Edward Dryden, 141 F.3d 1186, 10th Cir. (1998)by Scribd Government DocsLister v. Clay et al - Document No. 9by Justia.comJack Blinco, Jr. v. Green Tree Servicing, 400 F.3d 1308, 11th Cir. (2004)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Martin, 10th Cir. (1998)by Scribd Government DocsCiv Pro Cases- Introductionby Gel YatcoUnited States v. Hudson, 4th Cir. (2010)by Scribd Government DocsSchiller v. Mit-Clip Co., Inc, 180 F.2d 654, 2d Cir. (1950)by Scribd Government DocsLyons v. Bradshaw - Document No. 11by Justia.comZhang v. Lynch, 10th Cir. (2016)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Soto-Diarte, 10th Cir. (2010)by Scribd Government DocsUNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION - Document No. 758by Justia.comRussell Rath v. Colorado Attorney General, 10th Cir. (2008)by Scribd Government DocsRob Ralston, Administrator of the Estate, of Fred Mack Ralston, Deceased v. J.D. Sharp, and Oklahoma County Jailers or Sheriff's Deputies Whose Identities Are Unknown To, 43 F.3d 1483, 10th Cir. (1994)by Scribd Government DocsFull Textby MuyMiscellaneous Provisions Provisional Remediesby Sarah PaclibarCrespo vs. Mogulby Anonymous Pl76i1IlCBayer CropScience AG, et al., v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, C.A. No. 12-256 (RMB/JS) (D. Del. Jan. 10, 2014).by YCSTBlogBelden R. Reap, Sr. v. Stephen James, as Chairman, William H. Reynolds, as Member, Hugh L. Buckingham, as Member, Read N. Calvert, as Medical Advisor, of Local Board 53, Montgomery County, Maryland Selective Service System Maryland Board of Appeals, Selective Service System Henry C. Stanwood, as Maryland State Director, and Lewis B. Hershey, as National Director, Selective Service System, 232 F.2d 507, 4th Cir. (1956)by Scribd Government DocsRuling State Court 112416by rickystokesnewsMidterm Cases Summary-1by TurboyNavarroSimilar To D.C. Obama Ballot Challenge Reaches Supreme CourtSkip carouselTisdale v Obama EDVA Memorandum of Law to Support Plaintiff's ComplaintFair v Obama - Maryland Obama Ballot Challenge Decision - 8/27/2012Declaration on Obama Ineligibility for the U.S. PresidencyVoeltz v Obama - Newly Found Case Authority Notice - Florida Obama Electoral Challenge - 12/31/2012 Obama Fails E-Verify - Proof He Stole SSNAlexander v. USA - Document No. 2United States v. Betty Strickland, 4th Cir. (2012)United States v. Busby, 10th Cir. (2009)United States v. Edward Dryden, 141 F.3d 1186, 10th Cir. (1998)Lister v. Clay et al - Document No. 9Jack Blinco, Jr. v. Green Tree Servicing, 400 F.3d 1308, 11th Cir. (2004)United States v. Martin, 10th Cir. (1998)Civ Pro Cases- IntroductionUnited States v. Hudson, 4th Cir. (2010)Schiller v. Mit-Clip Co., Inc, 180 F.2d 654, 2d Cir. (1950)Lyons v. Bradshaw - Document No. 11Zhang v. Lynch, 10th Cir. (2016)United States v. Soto-Diarte, 10th Cir. (2010)UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION - Document No. 758Russell Rath v. Colorado Attorney General, 10th Cir. (2008)Rob Ralston, Administrator of the Estate, of Fred Mack Ralston, Deceased v. J.D. Sharp, and Oklahoma County Jailers or Sheriff's Deputies Whose Identities Are Unknown To, 43 F.3d 1483, 10th Cir. (1994)Full TextMiscellaneous Provisions Provisional RemediesCrespo vs. MogulBayer CropScience AG, et al., v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, C.A. No. 12-256 (RMB/JS) (D. Del. Jan. 10, 2014).Belden R. Reap, Sr. v. Stephen James, as Chairman, William H. Reynolds, as Member, Hugh L. Buckingham, as Member, Read N. Calvert, as Medical Advisor, of Local Board 53, Montgomery County, Maryland Selective Service System Maryland Board of Appeals, Selective Service System Henry C. Stanwood, as Maryland State Director, and Lewis B. Hershey, as National Director, Selective Service System, 232 F.2d 507, 4th Cir. (1956)Ruling State Court 112416Midterm Cases Summary-1United States v. Steven Hight, 3rd Cir. (2015)United States v. Omar Bennett, 3rd Cir. (2013)D.C. Obama Ballot Challenge Reaches Supreme Court