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.
 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.
 REPLY to opposition to motion re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed by BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II. (Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
Another beautiful motion that lays to rest the remaining confusions. And all it takes is 6 pages
 MOTION to the Court to Inform the Grand Jury by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (dr) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
Sibley believes that he has a right to be heard by the Grand Jury… Again, he may want to familiarize himself with the law and legal precedents.
Motion below the fold
 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