DC – Sibley v Obama – Quo Warranto I – US COA – Doc 2 – Reply in Support Summary Affirmance

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

Appellees respectfully reply to appellant Montgomery Blair Sibley’s opposition to their motion for summary affirmance.

In his opposition, Sibley principally argues that this Court’s summary affirmance procedures are unlawful, see Opp. at 2-5, and that he has an “inalienable right” to full briefing and oral argument, see id. at 20. As Sibley does not dispute, however, under the law of this Circuit, summary affirmance may be granted “when the merits of the parties’ positions are so clear,” Gray v. Poole, 243 F.3d 572, 575 (D.C. Cir. 2001), that “no benefit will be gained from further briefing and argument of the issues presented,” Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297-98 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam); see also D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures § VIII.G (2011) (discussing summary disposition and citing authorities).

Continue reading

DC – Ex Rel. Sibley v Obama – Quo Warranto I – Doc 5 – Amended Complaint

After send a letter to the US Attorney Machen to request that he be heard by the Grand Jury

I write to request pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3332 that you inform the grand jury of the following alleged offense committed by President Barack Obama, my identity, and your action or recommendation. Moreover, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1504, I request that you communicate to the Grand Jury my request to appear before the Grand Jury.

Sibley added some additional items to his complaints.

[5] AMENDED COMPLAINT against JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RONALD C. MACHEN, JR, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II filed by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY.(dr) (Entered: 01/31/2012)

Read the amended complaint below the fold.

Continue reading

DC – Sibley v Obama – Quo Warranto I – US COA – Doc 1 – Motion for Summary Affirmance

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 12-5198 BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

Appellees respectfully move for summary affirmance of the district court’s order dismissing an amended petition and complaint filed by pro se appellant Montgomery Blair Sibley. See Memorandum Opinion (“Op.”), Sibley v. Obama, No. 12-CV-1 (D.D.C. June 6, 2012) (attached as Exhibit A). Summary affirmance is appropriate where, as here, the merits of a case are so clear that expedited action is justified and no benefit will be gained from further briefing or argument of the issues presented. Gray v. Poole, 243 F.3d 572, 575 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297-98 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

Continue reading

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

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