DC – Sibley v Obama – Quo Warranto I – US COA – Doc 3 – Opposition to Motion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX RELATOR, MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY,AND MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY,

INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANT,

VS.

BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II,

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., DEPUTY MARSHAL JOHN DOE# 1, DEPUTY MARSHAL JOHN DOE#2, RONALD  C. MACHEN, JR., APPELLEES.

CASE No.: 12-5198

APPELLANT’S OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE 

Appellant, Montgomery Blair Sibley (“Sibley”), files this, his Opposition to the motion for summary affirmance of Appellees, and states:

I.          SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This Article III “inferior” Court has not been given by Congress jurisdiction to grant summary affirmance. The complexity and nuances of determining if Sibley has “standing” preclude disposing of this appeal in a summary fashion. Likewise, novel and significant issues are at play in Sibley’s quo warranto claims against Barack Obama precluding summary affirmance. Additionally, Sibley’s mandamus claims are first impression questions precluding summary affirmance. Sibley has a cause of action for chilling his right to access court. Finally, summary affirmance would not address all of Sibley’s issues on appeal.

Continue reading

DC – Ex Rel. Sibley v Obama – Quo Warranto I – Doc 18 – Order Denying

[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)

Sibley had filed motions requesting CM/ECF access, oral arguments, etc which the court all denied.

Continue reading

DC – Ex Rel. Sibley v Obama – Quo Warranto I – Doc 9 – Order denying petition

An order from the Court of Appeals. Apparently Sibley was not too happy with the speed of the proceedings and filed a motion with the COA.

[9] USCA ORDER (USCA Case Number 12-5040). Upon consideration of the petition for writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, fora writ procedendum ad justicium, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied. The district courts 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. (kb) (Entered: 03/07/2012)

Sibley announces that he is going on vacation and what does this judge do? Realizing that even Sibley understands this is not an urgent issue, he denies the petition for writ of mandamus.

Tell me that you did not see that one coming?…

Continue reading

DC – Ex Rel. Sibley v Obama – Quo Warranto I – Doc 20 – Notice of Appeal

[20] NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 19 Memorandum & Opinion, 18 Order on Motion to Expedite, Order on Motion for CM/ECF Password, Order on Motion for Discovery, Order on Motion for Hearing, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Dismiss, by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 4616049283. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (dr) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

DC – Ex Rel. Sibley v Obama – Quo Warranto I – Doc 10 – Motion for extension of time

[10] MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, ERIC HIMPTON HOLDER, JR, RONALD C. MACHEN, JR, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 03/08/2012)

If Sibley can go on vacation, then the defendants should have some extra time :-)

Continue reading

DC – Ex Rel. Sibley v Obama – Quo Warranto I – Doc 12 – Motion to dismiss

[12] MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint by JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, ERIC HIMPTON HOLDER, JR, RONALD C. MACHEN, JR, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 04/02/2012)

Sibley is way in over his head. This is a beautiful, well written motion with appropriate references to relevant court rulings.

More below the fold

Continue reading