SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#51

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:28 pm

Docket Update...





01/04/2013 [link]22,[/link]


MOTION to Disqualify the Honorable John D. Bates by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (dr) (Entered: 01/07/2013)I always read things like this as more like





MOTION by Disbarred Idiot to be declared a Vexatious Litigant, at Long Last, filed by BEKILTED IMBECILE



MetoDC
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:37 am

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#52

Post by MetoDC » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:30 pm

Docket Update...





01/04/2013 [link]22,[/link]


MOTION to Disqualify the Honorable John D. Bates by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (dr) (Entered: 01/07/2013)





01/07/2013 [link]23,[/link]


REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION to Stay MOTION to Quash filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 01/07/2013)








Let's see, Plaintiff (ex-lawyer (suspended/disbarred whatever) conceded almost everything by now making inadequate contrary legal arguments (part of why he is after all an ex-lawyer) and otherwise is case is, oops, moot. :mrgreen:





Not that MSB will remain mute for long. :-# But the case likely will be dismissed as soon as the Judge decides to rule. It is moot. :-bd The votes are counted. And Orly notwithstanding, she and MSB are not entitled to second guess Congress' decision by demanding additional identification papers ala Casablanca. Say goodnite Gracie. :dontwanttolook:





Respectfully submitted,





MetoDC



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#53

Post by SueDB » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:59 am

Docket Update...





01/04/2013 [link]22,[/link]


MOTION to Disqualify the Honorable John D. Bates by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (dr) (Entered: 01/07/2013)





01/07/2013 [link]23,[/link]


REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION to Stay MOTION to Quash filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Bowen, Brigham) (Entered: 01/07/2013)







Edit:


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34350
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#54

Post by realist » Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:39 am

VICTORY!!!! :P





Sibley v Alexander dismissed and remanded.





Docket Update...





01/08/2013 [link]24,[/link]


MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 1/8/2013. (lcjdb3) (Entered: 01/08/2013)





01/08/2013 [link]25,[/link]


ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss; denying 22 Motion to Disqualify Judge; denying 22 Motion to Amend; denying 1 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; remanding case to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See text of order and accompanying memorandum opinion for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 1/8/2013. (lcjdb3) (Entered: 01/08/2013)





Here, Sibley seeks injunctive and declaratory relief related to the purportedly


illegitimate casting of electoral votes for President Obama in the District of Columbia. Sibley's


other motions are related to the pursuit of that claim. Hence, the entirety of Sibley's action


cannot be maintained in this Court because the claim is moot and Sibley lacks standing, and


remand of the entire case is therefore appropriate.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43169
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#55

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:50 am

If the case should be -- and is -- dismissed, why is it also remanded? Isn't it dead upon dismissal?



Wild Bill
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:46 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#56

Post by Wild Bill » Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:56 am

If the case should be -- and is -- dismissed, why is it also remanded? Isn't it dead upon dismissal?Without jurisdiction, remand is mandatory, even if futile.



TexasFilly
Posts: 17523
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#57

Post by TexasFilly » Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:17 am

Kerchner v Obama! Berg v Obama! Taitz v Obama! =D> It is disappointing that the Court declined to rule on the Defendants' Motion for Sanctions, however. Maybe after 7 or 8 more complaints filed by Sibley. ](*,)


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34350
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#58

Post by realist » Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:30 am

Kerchner v Obama! Berg v Obama! Taitz v Obama! =D> It is disappointing that the Court declined to rule on the Defendants' Motion for Sanctions, however. Maybe after 7 or 8 more complaints filed by Sibley. ](*,)Query: Without jurisdiction could they sanction?With the remand can the lower court now consider it? Won't hold my breath even if they can, but just askin'.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#59

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:45 am

Kerchner v Obama! Berg v Obama! Taitz v Obama! =D> It is disappointing that the Court declined to rule on the Defendants' Motion for Sanctions, however. Maybe after 7 or 8 more complaints filed by Sibley. ](*,)Query: Without jurisdiction could they sanction?A court always has jurisdiction to sanction for practice occurring before it. Otherwise any vexatious litigant could escape sanctions simply by making their suits even more frivolous by, say, suing only when there is no jurisdiction. The defendants would still, out of caution, have to respond, but the litigant could not be sanctioned.By filing a lawsuit with a court and thus invoking its jurisdiction, at least the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel are by definition under that court's jurisdiction, at least for purposes of that case, and perhaps for purposes of minimum contacts for analyzing personal jurisdiction against them in a related or unrelated case.With the remand can the lower court now consider it?Yes.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34350
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#60

Post by realist » Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:47 am

Thanks, Loh. :-bd I suspected that was the case in both instances, but wanted to make sure.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

TexasFilly
Posts: 17523
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#61

Post by TexasFilly » Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:17 pm

Thanks, Loh. :-bd I suspected that was the case in both instances, but wanted to make sure.Yeah, I think we discussed that when somebody found that case that imposed the 1927 sanctions, IIRC.


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34350
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#62

Post by realist » Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:18 pm

Thanks, Loh. :-bd I suspected that was the case in both instances, but wanted to make sure.Yeah, I think we discussed that when somebody found that case that imposed the 1927 sanctions, IIRC.yabbut I'm old and memory challenged. :D


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

TexasFilly
Posts: 17523
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#63

Post by TexasFilly » Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:20 pm

Thanks, Loh. :-bd I suspected that was the case in both instances, but wanted to make sure.Yeah, I think we discussed that when somebody found that case that imposed the 1927 sanctions, IIRC.yabbut I'm old and memory challenged. :D Me too, which is why I qualified with "I think" and IIRC! :lol:


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1527
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#64

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:04 pm

Regarding sanctions, the Memorandum Opinion (docket 24) does mention sanctions. Footnote 5 on page 10 (2nd sentence) states, "Moreover, in light of the remand to Superior Court, the Court will not address the defendants' motion for sanctions".



User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 6599
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#65

Post by RoadScholar » Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:44 pm

Regarding sanctions, the Memorandum Opinion (docket 24) does mention sanctions. Footnote 5 on page 10 (2nd sentence) states, "Moreover, in light of the remand to Superior Court, the Court will not address the defendants' motion for sanctions".I think I detected a subtle hint that he thinks the lower court should, in fact, sanction this blockhead.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”