DC – Ex Rel. Sibley v Obama – Quo Warranto I – Doc 17 – Notice of Supplemental Authority

[17] NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (dr) (Entered: 05/11/2012)

Sibley argues that the defendants are holding contradictory opinions. But he confuses two very different situations. In one the DC Court was asked to address the preliminary findings by the board that President Obama was eligible and the argument was that such a finding did not qualify as an administrative hearing or adjudication Sibley raised D.C. Official Code § 11-722 (2001) which was found to not apply. In addition, Sibley may have failed to properly raise the issue as he had failed to participate in the (primary) vote and was thus not eligible under under D.C. Official Code § 1-1001-11. However, the court does have jurisdiction to hear the case under DC Code, just not in case of Sibley in this specific primary election. Nothing would have prevented Sibley from filing a complaint under under D.C. Official Code § 1-1001-11 with the DC Court of Appeals:

(b) (1) Within 7 days after the Board certifies the results of an election, any person who voted in the election may petition the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to review the election. The Court’s authority to review the results of an election shall include initiative, referendum, and recall measures as well as elections for a particular office.

(2) In response to such a petition, the Court may set aside the results certified and declare the true results of the

election, or void the election in whole or in part. To determine the true results of an election, the Court may order a recount or take other appropriate action, whether or not a recount has been conducted or requested pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. The Court shall void an election only if it:

(A) Determines that the candidate certified as the winner of the election does not meet the qualifications required for office; or

Source: D.C. Code 1-1001.11

Continue reading

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