Sibley’s cases – DC – Quo Warranto 2012 – 12-CV-1 (JDB)

Title: Sibley v Obama

Lower Court: U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC)

Case #: DC – 12-CV-1 (JDB) Assigned to: Judge John D. Bates

Date Filed: 01/03/2012

Date Terminated: 06/06/2012

Appeal:

Court: US Court of Appeals

Case #: 12-5198

Date Filed: 06/19/2012

Complaint: Quo Warranto, Mandamus, declaratory judgment, damages.

Declaratory Judgment:

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. § 1504 and Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are unconstitutional, so that he can write directly to sitting grand jurors about Obama’s alleged federal crime.

Writ of Mandamus:

In addition to seeking to oust President Obama from office and to bar him from the ballot, plaintiff has also petitioned for two writs of mandamus: the first  requiring that Attorney General Holder and U.S. Attorney Machen answer his quo warranto request, and the second requiring that the grand jury be informed that President Obama may have committed wire fraud in disseminating his allegedly falsified birth certificate.

Damages:

Finally, plaintiff seeks damages against the Department of Justice and its agents – the U.S. Marshals Service and the two deputies – for their alleged violations of his rights.

Status: Dismissed

For the reasons described below, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motions. The Court will also grant defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to each of plaintiff’s myriad unmeritorious claims. As Chief Judge Lamberth recently stated with respect to a similar suit, “[t]his Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills.” Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (2011).

Quo Warranto:

Hence, the Court will deny plaintiff’s petition for writs quo warranto, as it has no jurisdiction to evaluate the merits of plaintiff’s claim regarding President Obama’s eligibility now or in the future – for the presidency.

Details

Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge President Obama’s current tenure in office, just as others who have made similar claims contesting President Obama’s eligibility for the presidency were found to lack standing. The injury plaintiff asserts is not particular to him. See Kerchner, 612 F.3d at 207 (citing Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234, 238-39 (3d Cir. 2009)).

Self-declaration as a write-in candidate in the upcoming presidential election does not enable plaintiff to challenge President Obama’s present position. See Pl.’s Pet., Ex. A (Jan. 31, 2012) [Docket Entry 5]. A public official’s title to office is an injury particularized to an individual only if that individual has “an interest in the office itself” – if he or she sought the office at the same time as the current officeholder. Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 550 (1915).

Furthermore, as a matter of statute, plaintiff is not entitled to institute a quo warranto proceeding himself. Under Chapter 16, § 3503 of the District of Columbia Code, an “interested person” may institute such a proceeding only if the Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia refuse to institute one on his request.

Second, the scope of D.C. Code § 16-3503 has been interpreted narrowly by the D.C. Circuit, which has concluded that only the Attorney General or the United States Attorney has standing to bring a quo warranto action challenging a public official’s right to hold office. See Taitz, 707 F. Supp. 2d at 3 (citing Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).

The 9th and 10th Amendments also do not entitle plaintiff to bring such a claim against a president in federal court. See Smith v. Anderson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108220, at *6 (D. Col. 2009). The separation of powers doctrine expressed in the Constitution places the duty to select and remove the President not with individual citizens, but rather with the Electoral College and with the Congress, respectively. See U.S. Const. art. II, §§ 1, 4; id. amend. XII. The judiciary is not empowered to implement or review such actions, as has been noted in prior opinions responding to the same challenge. See Kerchner, 612 F.3d at 208; Barnett v. Obama, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101206, at *40, *48 (C.D. Cal 2009)

Relevant Orders

06/06/2012 18 ORDER denying 3 plaintiff’s motion for the CM/ECF password and to conduct pre-trial discovery and 15 his request for oral argument; denying 5 plaintiff’s amended certified petition for writs quo warranto and mandamus and request for declaratory relief and damages; denying 6 plaintiff’s motion to inform the grand jury; and granting 12 defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint. See text of Order for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 6/6/2012. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 6/6/2012. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

Appeal: Docket

SIBLEY v. OBAMA et al

Assigned to: Judge John D. Bates

Demand: $1,000,000

Case in other court: USCA, 12-05198

Date Filed: 01/03/2012

Date Terminated: 06/06/2012

06/22/2012 USCA Case Number 12-5198 for 20 Notice of Appeal, filed by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY. (dr) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

About these ads