Montgomery Blair Sibley, the disbarred D.C. attorney and presidential write-in candidate, has not wasted time since the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed his birther lawsuit on June 6.

"I immediately filed suit in the D.C. Superior Court against the D.C. Board of Elections [and Ethics]," Sibley told The Huffington Post on Tuesday.

This new lawsuit, filed June 8, asks that the Board of Elections and Ethics be compelled to "respond to investigate Sibley's Request challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be on the November 6, 2012, General Election ballot as a Presidential candidate."

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Sinclair's discovery effort to compel disclosure of the identities of the three anonymous Internet speaker defendants is rejected and the complaint will be dismissed. A separate Order has been issued on this date.

[1] Because Sinclair's allegations, and hence this action, are totally unrelated to President Obama's current official responsibilities, the Court will not employ that title in this opinion.

[2] The arguments presented by mzmolly and DemocraticUnderground.com in opposition to Sinclair's motion to compel have, for the most part, simply been adopted in the context of the motions to quash. The Court will therefore refer collectively to defendants' arguments unless further specificity is needed.

[3] Sinclair's responsive arguments do not squarely address the serious issues here. His ad hominem accusation against mzmolly and its counsel (Public Citizen) is baseless, and the contention that only a jury can assess the facial validity of his claims ignores the body of defamation law discussed above. So, too, the argument that the First Amendment is irrelevant ignores both logic and the law. And the contention that jurisdiction can be established later through discovery is unpersuasive. Lastly, Sinclair's effort to force Public Citizen to reveal the identity of its client is frivolous because no subpoena has been served on Public Citizen and Sinclair simply ignores the attorney-client privilege.

[4] Although the Court is not impressed with the merits of Sinclair's claims, and rejects completely his discovery efforts, the sanctions requested by mzmolly and DemocraticUnderground.com will be denied given the evolving and novel areas of law involved here.

Sibley v. D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, No. 2012 CA 004892 B (D.C. Super. Ct., filed June 8, 2012)

2012 CA 004892 B: SIBLEY, MONTGOMERY BLAIR Vs. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS

Case Type:
Civil II
File Date:
06/08/2012
Status:
Open
Status Date:
06/08/2012

Disposition: Undisposed

Disposition Date:

SIBLEY, MONTGOMERY BLAIR
PLAINTIFF PRO SE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS
Defendant
BAKER, MELISSA L
EFROS, Miss ELLEN A
GRAHAM, GRACE
NATHAN, Mr IRVIN B B

09/07/2012 09:30 AM Initial Scheduling Conference-60

06/12/2012 Service Issued
Issue Date: 06/12/2012
Service: Summons Issued
Method: Service Issued
Cost Per: $
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS
441 4th Street NW
Suite 250
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
Tracking No: 5000119387

06/11/2012 Praecipe to Enter Appearance Filed
Praecipe to Enter Appearance of Melissa L. Baker as Attorney for the Defendant. Filed. Submitted. 06/11/2012 11:14. ncv.
Attorney: BAKER, MELISSA L (499368)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS (Defendant);

06/08/2012 Alias Summons Filed
Alias Summons Filed Receipt: 226887 Date: 06/08/2012

06/08/2012 Event Scheduled
Event Scheduled
Event: Initial Scheduling Conference-60
Date: 09/07/2012 Time: 9:30 am
Judge: EPSTEIN, ANTHONY C Location: Courtroom A-47

06/08/2012 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed
Attorney: PRO SE (999999)
MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (PLAINTIFF); Receipt: 226887 Date: 06/08/2012

09/07/2012 Dismissed by Court Dismissed by Court

09/07/2012 Oral Ruling on Written Motion Entered on the Docket
Oral Ruling on Defendant's Written Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Its Entirety (Granted) Entered on the Docket. AM
Participant(s): Judge ANTHONY C EPSTEIN

09/07/2012 Oral Ruling on Written Motion Entered on the Docket
Oral Ruling on Defendant's Written Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 (Denied without prejudice) Entered on the Docket
Participant(s): Judge ANTHONY C EPSTEIN

09/07/2012 Event Resulted: Event Resulted:
The following event: Initial Scheduling Conference-60 scheduled for 09/07/2012 at 9:30 am has been resulted as follows:

Result: Scheduling Conference Hearing Held
Judge: EPSTEIN, ANTHONY C Location: Courtroom A-47 (Courtsmart) Plaintiff (pro se) and AAG Baker present. The court ruled on (2) pending motions: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Its Entirety Granted. Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 Denied without Prejudice. All reasons set forth orally by the court on the record. AM
MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (PLAINTIFF); ; MELISSA L BAKER (Attorney) on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS (Defendant); Judge ANTHONY C EPSTEIN

Montgomery Sibley of a write-in candidate for President in D.C. had his appeal dismissed a day after respondents filed their motion to dismiss. Sibley did not have a chance to respond to the dismissal motion. The lawlessness and bias for Obama in the D.C. courts now unfortunately commonplace in a conspiracy nationwide by progressive courts willing to break the law to help Obama.

The Supreme Court is conferencing on the petition Nov. 2. Unfortunately SCOTUS has been ducking the issue of obama’s ineligibility.

On September 10, 2012, Petitioner, Montgomery Blair Sibley filed an original jurisdiction petition with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

On September 17, 2012, the Respondent in that action filed its Motion to Dismiss that Petition. The following day, on September 18, 2012, before Petitioner had received – let alone replied – to the Motion to Dismiss, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed, relied upon and then granted Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.

Nb.: Sibley filed an original petition in the D.C. Court of Appeals. Strictly speaking, it is not an appeal of the lower court action. (But starting a separate thread for this seems silly.)


SCOTUS No. 12-467.

No. 12-467
Title:
Montgomery Blair Sibley, Petitioner
v.
District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics
Docketed: October 15, 2012
Lower Ct: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Case Nos.: (12-AA-1498)
Decision Date: September 18, 2012
Rehearing Denied: October 2, 2012

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 12 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2012)
Oct 12 2012 Motion to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by petitioner.
Oct 17 2012 Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 2, 2012.
Nov 5 2012 Motion to expedite consideration filed by petitioner DENIED.

The Motion to Expedite was DENIED.

The Petition for Writ has not been scheduled for conference.

The response is not due until 11/14.

About the only thing I find amusing about Mr. Sibley's continuing abuse of the judicial system is the reference in the Court's Orders to the unquestioned Master of Profligate Pleadings, i.e., Andy Martin. By comparison, Sibley is no better than a dabbling dilettante.

See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

This is actually a different notorious abuser of process, James L. Martin, at least if you're referring to this.

For More Information Contact:

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY through

http://www.MontgomeryBlairSibley.com

PRESS RELEASE #5

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 13, 2012

POTUS WRITE-IN CANDIDATE SIBLEY FILES SUIT AGAINST BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA , II AND

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE TO PREVENT VIOLATION OF ARTICLE II, §1, CLAUSE 5 OF THE

U.S. CONSTITUTION WHICH REQUIRES THE PRESIDENT BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

WASHINGTON D.C. - POTUS Write-In Candidate Montgomery Blair Sibley today filed two lawsuits

in the District of Columbia. The first Complaint – Sibley vs. Obama – invokes the ancient writ of

quo warranto to have the U.S. District Court compel Mr. Obama to demonstrate that he is eligible

for the office of President. The questionable certificates of live births released by Mr. Obama, his

questionable social security number and selective service registration and his refusal to authorize

release of college transcripts which would establish his status as a citizen are all brought to the

Court’s attention by the Complaint. Mr. Sibley stated: “Everyone else in these United States has to

demonstrate they are U.S. Citizens in order to be employed, why not Mr. Obama before he is

employed by us as our President?”

The second Complaint – Sibley vs. Alexander, Dinan and Lightfoot – is a class action complaint filed

in D.C. Superior Court against the District of Columbia members of the so-called Electoral College

as class representatives of the so-called Electoral College. The Complaint seek an injunction

preventing any and all of the 538 Electors authorized by the Twelfth and Twenty-Third Amendments

to the Constitution from casting their votes for an ineligible candidate, i.e., Mr. Obama. Mr. Sibley’s

Motion for Preliminary Injunction is pending a hearing date to be set by Judge John Mott. Mr.

Sibley stated: “It is inane to image the Framers of our Constitution authorizing the Presidential

Electors to vote for a person who fails to qualify for that office.”

- E n d -

Sibley Acts II & III?

Via OBC

Everyone else in these United States has to demonstrate they are U.S. Citizens in order to be employed, why not Mr. Obama before he is employed by us as our President?”

I think this is the right thread for this update - today's U.S. Supreme Court Order list includes (along with 500 or so other denials) a denial of Cert. in case number 12-467. Another loss for the ex-attorney.

Respectfully submitted,

MetoDC

I *think* this is the right thread.

Cert Denied

12-467
SIBLEY, MONTGOMERY B. V. DC BD. OF ELECTIONS



http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cour ... r_5426.pdf

6:13 AM (1 hour ago)

to me
Orly,
Thanks for your condolences. I expected nothing else for to allow us to be heard would be to allow a crack in the wall of judicial tyranny.
I will see these cases I have pending through to their conclusions, though the results are pre-ordained I am sure. After that, I think we might take a cue from the Abolitionists and gather together for a meeting of the minds . . .
Montgomery

Orly/Sibley

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=375689



The tiny minds are going to get together... how sweet.

Orly/Sibley

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=375689



The tiny minds are going to get together... how sweet.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Not only in Denmark is something rotten . . .
Part of the purpose of this blog is to document the shenanigans of the Courts which otherwise would go unnoticed by the general population.

So today I memorialize a neat trick by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals: Enter an order and then say you did not enter an order. Here are the facts which are more fully detailed in my Verified Motion For Emergency En Banc Hearing :

[...]

2. On February 1, 2013, having not heard anything from the Court in that matter, I called the Clerk’s office and inquired of the Clerk as to the most recent activity in this matter. The Clerk informed me that on January 16, 2013, the Court entered an Order. I indicated that I had never received the Order and requested that a copy be immediately sent to me.

[...]

A priori, someone has “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies” a court record in violation of § 2071. Thus the very integrity of the judicial process has been compromised.