LETTER filed  by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States notifying this court of the following activity in the case before it: A petition for writ of certiorari was filed and placed on the docket on 12/14/2012 as No. 12-736. [12-5198]
MOTION to Expedite disposition, MOTION for CM/ECF Password, MOTION to conduct pre-service Discovery, MOTION for oral argument by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (jf, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, MOTION for Leave to File Oversized Opposition by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (dr) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
Sibley needs more time and more space…
LETTER filed  by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States notifying this court of the following activity in the case before it: The petition for writ of certiorari was denied on 02/19/2013. [12-5198]
Sibley files a motion to disqualify Judge Berman Jackson, but the case had already been re-assigned
 MOTION to Disqualify Judge Amy Berman Jackson by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (jf, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
 Memorandum in opposition to re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY. (dr) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
Sibley is not happy. Light on the supporting precedents but full of beautiful rhetoric. He surely can write a lot of words, but a legal argument…
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).