Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 320 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 5499
Location: Southwest of down east
Occupation: Food critic
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
I'm not entirely sure this is consistent with the common law origin of quo warranto, but it doesn't have to be. The statute clearly abrogated any contradictory common law authority.


It's a nit about which we may disagree, but the writ was originally a royal prerogative writ, dating back to Edward I. The use was expanded via English statute in the time of Queen Anne and has (outside the context of a monarch or monarch's chancellor bringing the action), been a creature of statute ever since. Thus, I don't consider quo warranto to have much of a common law origin at all. YMMV.

_________________
Hope springs eternal within the human uniboob. - Thomas Jefferson.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:13 pm
Posts: 1941
Location: Unfortunately, deep in the Bible Belt
uncle_spike wrote:
majorbabs wrote:
How sad to come from a family that contributed so much to American history -- and to end up such a failure and a laughingstock.


What, you're not giving him credit for the Leonidas statement, and acknowledging that his campaign will be as epic and important as the stand at Thermopylae? :lol:


Oh, I gave him credit for that. :twisted: :twisted: I find that statement very telling. I think that statement alone explains the kilt. :shock:

_________________
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:36 am
Posts: 441
Occupation: Janitor at Judicial Re-Education Center #57
Piffle wrote:
Welsh Dragon wrote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Sibley suspended for 3 years in 2008 rather than disbared ?


Yup, I think you're right. But the DC Bar currently lists him as suspended for disciplinary reasons:

Quote:
Montgomery B. Sibley

Membership Status: Suspended
Reason for suspension: Disciplinary suspension.
Disciplinary history: Yes
Date of admission: September 13, 1999


I'm still going with disbarred:

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/fre ... 1loc=FCLOW

PRIOR HISTORY: In re Discipline of Sibley, 130 S. Ct. 1947, 176 L. Ed. 2d 411, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2535 (U.S., 2010)



JUDGES: [*1] Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor.


OPINION

Montgomery Blair Sibley, of Washington, District of Columbia, having been suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of March 22, 2010; and a rule having been issued and served upon him requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred; and a response having been filed;

It is ordered that Montgomery Blair Sibley is disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

_________________
" quickly, move, down, down, down, down. Keep going, keep going, keep going. More, more, more. Yes, stop."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 5499
Location: Southwest of down east
Occupation: Food critic
esseff44 wrote:

From April, 2008, the Florida bar suspended him for 3 years. It does not show that he has been re-instated however.

http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/0/6 ... enDocument

Click on 'yes' to see the court order.

No results for the DC bar membership.

http://www.dcbar.org/find_a_member/results.cfm


Perhaps more interesting than the court order are the referee's findings and recommendation. It was basically a deadbeat dad case. No pay child support, no practice law.

About suspensions: I've read a couple of articles in bar newsletters about the long-term consequences of suspensions and, IIRC, most lawyers who are suspended for three years (a not uncommon period for moderately serious disciplinary charges) never practice law again. The damage to reputation and difficulties in restarting practice pose hurdles that are not easy to overcome. Also too, reinstatement is not usually automatic. In most states, one has to petition and beg their way back in by attesting that they have been and will continue to be good little boys or girls.

I'm with Spike: Even if you split hairs about his status in one state or another, this guy is finished...kaput...disbarred.

_________________
Hope springs eternal within the human uniboob. - Thomas Jefferson.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:36 am
Posts: 441
Occupation: Janitor at Judicial Re-Education Center #57
majorbabs wrote:
Oh, I gave him credit for that. :twisted: :twisted: I find that statement very telling. I think that statement alone explains the kilt. :shock:


Don't be hating on kilts now! And if the kilt isn't enough, I shall be forced to don my full sequin evening battle gown and stand up for men in plaid skirts everywhere!

_________________
" quickly, move, down, down, down, down. Keep going, keep going, keep going. More, more, more. Yes, stop."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm
Posts: 4096
Location: Brigadoon
Occupation: Retired
Is the dusty corner of my mind, I keep thinking that there's a Madam named Sibly. Am I gonna have to push a Swiffer betwixt my ears?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am
Posts: 4406
Piffle wrote:
Perhaps more interesting than the court order are the referee's findings and recommendation. It was basically a deadbeat dad case. No pay child support, no practice law.

IIRC, Sibley used/abused his law license to harass his ex-wife all the way to the Florida Supreme Court. That's why they kicked him to the curb.

_________________
@Orly: "No one is listening to you anymore. And that’s the way it should always be." - Scott J. Tepper (11/5/2012)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:13 pm
Posts: 1941
Location: Unfortunately, deep in the Bible Belt
uncle_spike wrote:
majorbabs wrote:
Oh, I gave him credit for that. :twisted: :twisted: I find that statement very telling. I think that statement alone explains the kilt. :shock:


Don't be hating on kilts now! And if the kilt isn't enough, I shall be forced to don my full sequin evening battle gown and stand up for men in plaid skirts everywhere!


I'm not thinking kilt per se, I thinking that the kilt is the closest he could, in today's world, come to wearing a Spartan-like pteruges. His kilt evokes a few smirks. doG knows what kind of reaction he would get if he wore a pteruges which I suspect he would dearly love to do.

_________________
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:36 am
Posts: 441
Occupation: Janitor at Judicial Re-Education Center #57
DaveMuckey wrote:
Is the dusty corner of my mind, I keep thinking that there's a Madam named Sibly. Am I gonna have to push a Swiffer betwixt my ears?


SIbley represented the DC Madam..perhaps that's the connection you are thinking of?

_________________
" quickly, move, down, down, down, down. Keep going, keep going, keep going. More, more, more. Yes, stop."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am
Posts: 3155
Quote:
About suspensions: I've read a couple of articles in bar newsletters about the long-term consequences of suspensions and, IIRC, most lawyers who are suspended for three years (a not uncommon period for moderately serious disciplinary charges) never practice law again.

It was a suspension and in Florida to restore one's membership you have to show fitness for reinstatement. The link also discusses some other, mostly frivolous, cases by Sibley. He appears to have sued any and all Judge all the way up to the Supreme Court.

_________________
- Credimus quod credere volumus -


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 12932
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Piffle wrote:
About the district judge: I consider Amy Berman Jackson a personal friend and a truly brilliant attorney. She's been on the bench less than a year and I haven't taken time out to follow any or her cases, but this is one woman who knows the law, loves the law and writes exceedingly well. However, this case is not likely to pose much in the way of an intellectual challenge to her.

She is a new federal judge? Who nominated her? ;;)

Lamberth on vacation?

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 5499
Location: Southwest of down east
Occupation: Food critic
bob wrote:
She is a new federal judge? Who nominated her? ;;)

Lamberth on vacation?


Dunno about Lamberth being on vacation. This must of been put in the "other crazy" category rather than the "Taitz" or "Citizens Grand Jury" queue.

She was nominated by Obama in 2010 and the Senate let the nomination lapse. (Thanks a lot, Mitch and friends!) Then she was renominated and confirmed by a 97-0 vote in March 2011, according to the Wiki article.

The 97-0 vote surprises me somewhat because she has an African-American husband. (I met him at her son's bar mitzvah.) You'd have thought someone like Jeff Sessions or Jim Demint would have opposed her, wouldn't you? I guess they vote "yay" every so often just to show how open-minded they are.

_________________
Hope springs eternal within the human uniboob. - Thomas Jefferson.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 10413
Piffle wrote:
A Legal Lohengrin wrote:
I'm not entirely sure this is consistent with the common law origin of quo warranto, but it doesn't have to be. The statute clearly abrogated any contradictory common law authority.


It's a nit about which we may disagree, but the writ was originally a royal prerogative writ, dating back to Edward I. The use was expanded via English statute in the time of Queen Anne and has (outside the context of a monarch or monarch's chancellor bringing the action), been a creature of statute ever since. Thus, I don't consider quo warranto to have much of a common law origin at all. YMMV.


I suppose I'm riding a bit of a hobby horse and will stop this threadjack, or maybe start a new thread about it some time, but I do not think the distinction between "common law" and "statutory law" is, or ever was, as sharply and formally distinguished as some seem to think. My view on quo warranto is not unique, or particularly new.

"The writ of Quo Warranto was a common law writ." Territory v. Lockwood, 70 U.S. 236, 238 (1865) (Swayne, J., for the Court). Swayne then goes on to make the note you did. "In the course of time it was superseded by the speedier remedy of an Information in the same nature." Id. (citing "5 Bacon's Abridgment, 174, Tit. Information A; 3 Blackstone's Commentaries, 263"). "It was a writ of right for the king." Id. Incidentally, as you certainly know, that is to say it was what is now generally called a prerogative writ. Incidentally, Lockwood stands for the proposition that a qui tam action is brought on behalf of the government and cannot be brought without the government's consent.

While it is arguable that Swayne was simply speaking carelessly, and true that quo warranto is not generally listed among the writs called "common law writs," although it is generally listed in any list of "prerogative writes," lesser courts have similarly made statements clearly indicating they consider the law surrounding quo warranto to arise not only from the original statute, but from the interpretive overlay added by centuries of common law. "Both the common law and the Code of the District of Columbia clearly point out the legal course to be pursued in determining the title to an office in a corporation such as is the one in question. We apprehend that quo warranto is that remedy." Hayes v. Burns, 25 App. D.C. 242, 247 (D.C. Cir. 1905).

As an example of something originating in "common law" that has a similar history, what is generally called the common law writ of trespass, or trespass quare clausum fregit. Some analogous action had existed since at least the time of Alfred the Great, but the Statute of Gloucester in 1278 established it as a statutory form of action. Despite its statutory basis, trespass is generally listed as a traditional common law offense. After all, most of the principles governing it are judge-created, based as they are on centuries-old and often vague language.

Trespass may have a longer history predating the statute than quo warranto. However, both had a statutory basis during the development of most law relating to them as we inherited them from English law, but one is for formal reasons considered traditionally common law while the latter is often considered statutory and is, in contemporary America, purely statutory and quite diminished in scope.

In short, I'd generally opt for a functional rather than a formal definition of common law, in which common law is generally speaking judge-made, whether there is a nucleus of statutory language under it or not, and even statutory law can ultimately develop so many accretional layers of interpretation that their actual application is ultimately governed by common law.

At least in terms of how I often use the term in this vein, I would say a casual definition of common law would be that which, unless abrogated explicitly or by necessary implication by statute, continues to exist. I would include in that category all that enforced by state courts in, say, 1789 and on, in absence of any explicit statute in the law of that state, which would be supported by a court of that time by citing case law rather than statute.

In any event, to avoid swelling this lengthy hobby-horse threadjack completely out of proportion, from what I have read, even a lot of people who will give a highly constricted definition of "common law" when specifically discussing formal common law will then use the same phrase simply to mean our inherited body of English law, even including that with an express statutory basis.

For example, the originalist definition of NBC, to bring it back to a somewhat birther-related issue, as codified in the Fourteenth Amendment, clearly includes, as well as the formal "common law" citizens under jus soli, the citizens created by statute, that is, jus sanguinis citizens. Even Vattel recognized that.

_________________
"I no doubt deserved my enemies but I don't believe I deserved my friends." -- Walt Whitman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:52 am
Posts: 4954
Location: Switzerland
nbc wrote:
Quote:
About suspensions: I've read a couple of articles in bar newsletters about the long-term consequences of suspensions and, IIRC, most lawyers who are suspended for three years (a not uncommon period for moderately serious disciplinary charges) never practice law again.

It was a suspension and in Florida to restore one's membership you have to show fitness for reinstatement. The link also discusses some other, mostly frivolous, cases by Sibley.He appears to have sued any and all Judge all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Ohh - that reminds me of some new case in HI. Will Orly follow up and attempt her own disbarment ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:01 pm
Posts: 29
Yeah, don't mess with kilts. I lke to wear mine ocasionally.

Even though I have a relatively normal size package.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 10413
DavidC wrote:
Yeah, don't mess with kilts. I lke to wear mine ocasionally.

Even though I have a relatively normal size package.


I am suspicious of Sibley's claims about his package and demand to see the long form, which I know is a forgery in advance anyway.

An article about his adventures with the D.C. Madam described him in this manner: "Sibley played rugby and several other sports with so much aggression that his father often picked him up from the hospital."

The end of that sentence puts the lie to its first half. In fact, to paraphrase Mark Twain, I wish I owned that sentence, so that I could shoot my half.[*] That sentence intends to portray a pugnacious sportsman, a real manly man, the kind of guy whose package could not fit in a normal set of pants. Instead, what it actually portrays is a stupid bastard who got beat up a lot and rarely got out of a sports event without needing medical attention. I believe the sporting equivalent for those of us who played videogames instead of sports would be "Glass Joe" from Punch-Out.

I suspect much of Sibley's career is of the same nature, that is, his big mouth uttering checks (and other instruments) that his skills couldn't pay. Now a bitter loser, he attacks everyone and fails utterly.

[*]Not a death threat!

_________________
"I no doubt deserved my enemies but I don't believe I deserved my friends." -- Walt Whitman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am
Posts: 3155
RTH10260 wrote:
nbc wrote:
Quote:
About suspensions: I've read a couple of articles in bar newsletters about the long-term consequences of suspensions and, IIRC, most lawyers who are suspended for three years (a not uncommon period for moderately serious disciplinary charges) never practice law again.

It was a suspension and in Florida to restore one's membership you have to show fitness for reinstatement. The link also discusses some other, mostly frivolous, cases by Sibley.He appears to have sued any and all Judge all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Ohh - that reminds me of some new case in HI. Will Orly follow up and attempt her own disbarment ?


Sibley's most Orly-like action involved a Supreme Court action in which he asked that 7 justices recuse themselves and then he found that the Court lacked quorum...

_________________
- Credimus quod credere volumus -


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 27058
Non-substantive Docket Update:

Quote:
SIBLEY v. OBAMA et al
Assigned to: Judge John D. Bates
Demand: $1,000,000
Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

Date Filed: 01/03/2012
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question




1 COMPLAINT against JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RONALD C. MACHEN, JR, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616044926) filed by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 01/05/2012)

01/03/2012 Summons (3) Issued as to ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, RONALD C. MACHEN, JR, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II. (jf, ) (Entered: 01/05/2012)

01/06/2012 2 Case Reassigned to Judge John D. Bates. Judge Amy Berman Jackson no longer assigned to the case. (jeb, ) (Entered: 01/06/2012)

01/09/2012 3 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)

01/09/2012 4 MOTION to Disqualify Judge Amy Berman Jackson by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (jf, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/11/2012 MINUTE ORDER: This case has been transferred to Judge John D. Bates pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(3), which states that "a case filed by a pro se litigant with a prior case pending shall be deemed related and assigned to the judge having the earliest case." Therefore, upon consideration of 4 plaintiff's motion to disqualify the Honorable Amy Berman Jackson, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 1/11/2012. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 01/11/2012)


_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


Image x 4 Image x 34


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 12932
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Quote:
01/11/2012 MINUTE ORDER: This case has been transferred to Judge John D. Bates pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(3), which states that "a case filed by a pro se litigant with a prior case pending shall be deemed related and assigned to the judge having the earliest case." Therefore, upon consideration of 4 plaintiff's motion to disqualify the Honorable Amy Berman Jackson, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 1/11/2012. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

1. Bates is a George W. Bush appointee who "has adjudicated in several cases directly affecting the office of the President."

2. Can someone jump on PACER and locate Silbley's prior case(s) with Bates?

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 10413
realist wrote:
Non-substantive Docket Update:

Quote:
01/09/2012 4 MOTION to Disqualify Judge Amy Berman Jackson by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (jf, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)


Please, Judge, let me out of this frying pan!

Quote:
Quote:
01/11/2012 MINUTE ORDER: This case has been transferred to Judge John D. Bates pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(3), which states that "a case filed by a pro se litigant with a prior case pending shall be deemed related and assigned to the judge having the earliest case." Therefore, upon consideration of 4 plaintiff's motion to disqualify the Honorable Amy Berman Jackson, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 1/11/2012. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 01/11/2012)


Sure, Blair! Into the fire with you, you kilted loony!

Edit: Not a death threat!

_________________
"I no doubt deserved my enemies but I don't believe I deserved my friends." -- Walt Whitman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am
Posts: 3155
See this posting see also Sibley v Obama filed on ay 17, 2011 regarding medical marijuana.

bob wrote:
Quote:
01/11/2012 MINUTE ORDER: This case has been transferred to Judge John D. Bates pursuant to Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(3), which states that "a case filed by a pro se litigant with a prior case pending shall be deemed related and assigned to the judge having the earliest case." Therefore, upon consideration of 4 plaintiff's motion to disqualify the Honorable Amy Berman Jackson, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 1/11/2012. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

1. Bates is a George W. Bush appointee who "has adjudicated in several cases directly affecting the office of the President."

2. Can someone jump on PACER and locate Silbley's prior case(s) with Bates?

_________________
- Credimus quod credere volumus -


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 12932
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
nbc wrote:

Ahhh: Sibley likes the medical marijuana, and wanted to enjoin Obama and Holder from enforcing federal drug laws against the dispensaries. Bates dismissed the suit.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 10413
nbc wrote:
See this posting see also Sibley v Obama filed on ay 17, 2011 regarding medical marijuana.

bob wrote:
2. Can someone jump on PACER and locate Silbley's prior case(s) with Bates?


He apparently has a number of kook suits before the D.C. District Court, including failed kook suits against the Supreme Court and against Stephen Breyer.

This appears to be the pending case:

Quote:
CM/ECF?

Query
Reports
Utilities
Logout

1:11-cv-00919-JDB SIBLEY v. OBAMA et al
John D. Bates, presiding
Date filed: 05/17/2011
Date of last filing: 11/16/2011

Case Summary
Office: Washington, DC Filed: 05/17/2011
Jury Demand: Plaintiff Demand:
Nature of Suit: 890 Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant Disposition:
County: 11001 Terminated:
Origin: 1 Reopened:
Lead Case: None
Related Case: 1:10-cv-01696-JDB Other Court Case: None
Def Custody Status:
Flags: JURY, PROSE-NP, TYPE-D

Plaintiff: MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY
Defendant: VINCENT GRAY represented by Melissa Lael Baker
Phone: 202-442-9887
Fax: (202) 730-1499
Email: melissa.baker AT dc.gov
Defendant: VINCENT GRAY represented by Jacques P. Lerner
Phone: (202) 724-1342
Fax: (202) 715-7824
Email: jacques.lerner AT dc.gov
Defendant: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA represented by Melissa Lael Baker
Phone: 202-442-9887
Fax: (202) 730-1499
Email: melissa.baker AT dc.gov
Defendant: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA represented by Jacques P. Lerner
Phone: (202) 724-1342
Fax: (202) 715-7824
Email: jacques.lerner AT dc.gov


And this is the previous opinion.

Quote:
10/21/2011 47 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 10/21/2011. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 10/21/2011)


He filed a kooky motion for reconsideration that is still pending, so he has only himself to blame for the case still being "pending."

Edit: A bunch of formatting issues.

_________________
"I no doubt deserved my enemies but I don't believe I deserved my friends." -- Walt Whitman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am
Posts: 3155
Sibley has a lot of funny suits, none of which have gone anywhere and several of them have caused him personal injury as his license to practice law was taken away for the period of 3 years, in Florida and by the DC Bar when he reported on his Florida issues. If I remember correctly, he filed a case with SCOTUS while asking 7 of the 9 judges to recuse themselves... No Quorum... Oops....

Quote:
By judicial decree, Sibley has been barred from self-representation in Florida state courts as a result of his vexatious litigation. See Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So. 2d 980, 988 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). Sibley seems unfazed by sanctions against his person, so the Florida courts decided that his frivolous suits could continue only if Sibley could convince another lawyer to take his case. Id. Sibley also has a history of abusive litigation in federal courts. See Sibley v. Wilson, 2004 U.S. Dist. 22205 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (listing cases). The latest of these was to sue the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, in their individual capacities, for denying certiorari in his case. See Sibley v. United States Supreme Court, 136 F. App’x 252 (11th Cir. 2005). A similar remedy to that employed in Florida courts might be appropriate, upon motion to a district court, given Sibley’s history of vexatious litigation. This court has enforced similar sanctions in the past. See, e.g., Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1386-87 (11th Cir. 1993).

_________________
- Credimus quod credere volumus -


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:48 am
Posts: 5276
Occupation: Professional pain in the ass.
This appears to be new:

First Amended Certified Petition for Writs Quo Warranto and Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages

Obama's not eligible, blah, blah, blah.

_________________
Pity the poor Birthers, for they know not how to Think.

Turning the Scale.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 320 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group