Sibley's motion to expedite consideration (of his cert. pet.) to be heard at April 20 SCOTUS conference.

Sibley's motion to expedite consideration (of his cert. pet.) to be heard at April 20 SCOTUS conference.

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

04/04/2012 13 AMENDED NOTICE of Vacation by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (rdj) (Entered: 04/05/2012)

04/06/2012 14 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)

04/11/2012 MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 14 plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time to file opposition to motion to dismiss and leave to file oversized opposition, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion is GRANTED with respect to enlargement of time and DENIED with respect to leave to file oversized opposition; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff shall file his opposition by not later than April 24, 2012. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 4/11/2012. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

Docket Update...

Sibley gets until April 24 to file his response to the motion to dismiss but he is not allowed to exceed the requirements for the number of pages allowed.

Ah I see. So Sibley was wanting to drop an "Orly-Load" of zibits on the Judge?

Except by permission of the Court, briefs or memoranda shall not exceed forty (40) 8 1/2" by 11" pages of double spaced standard typographical print, exclusive of pages containing a table of contents, table of statutes, rules or the like. The original of all motions or briefs shall be filed with the Clerk at the seat of Court where the Judge sits.

Reply briefs are not required and the absence of a reply brief will not prejudice the moving party. Any reply brief must be filed within 10 days of the filing of the responsive brief to which reply is being made, as computed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. A reply brief may not exceed 10 pages, must be strictly confined to a discussion of matters raised by the responsive brief and must contain references to the pages of the responsive brief to which reply is being made.

Plaintiff’s claims for quo warranto should be dismissed because Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the President’s current term in office and the relief Plaintiff seeks is unavailable through quo warranto.

A. Quo warranto is not available to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on the 2012 election ballot.
B. Plaintiff has not suffered a concrete and particularized injury that would provide him with standing to challenge President Obama’s eligibility to serve his current term in office.
1. Contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, members of the public lack the standing tochallenge public officials using the quo warranto statute.
2. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate standing for a quo warranto challenge through acandidacy in a future election.
C. Plaintiff may not use the vehicle of quo warranto to challenge the title of President of the United States

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

04/11/2012 MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 14 plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time to file opposition to motion to dismiss and leave to file oversized opposition, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion is GRANTED with respect to enlargement of time and DENIED with respect to leave to file oversized opposition; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff shall file his opposition by not later than April 24, 2012. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 4/11/2012. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/13/2012 15 Memorandum in opposition to re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY. (dr) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

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


04/13/2012 15 Memorandum in opposition to re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY. (dr) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/23/2012 16 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)

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12-cv-00001-JDB

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
Date Terminated: 06/06/2012
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question


06/06/2012 18 ORDER denying 3 plaintiff's motion for the CM/ECF password and to conduct pre-trial discovery and 15 his request for oral argument; denying 5 plaintiff's amended certified petition for writs quo warranto and mandamus and request for declaratory relief and damages; denying 6 plaintiff's motion to inform the grand jury; and granting 12 defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. See text of Order for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 6/6/2012. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

06/06/2012 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 6/6/2012. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

For the reasons described below, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motions. The Court will also grant defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to each of plaintiff’s myriad unmeritorious claims. As Chief Judge Lamberth recently stated with respect to a similar suit, “[t]his Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills.” Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (2011).

Before this Court may evaluate the merits of his claims, plaintiff must demonstrate thathe has the requisite standing to bring this lawsuit, and that the Court may grant the relief heseeks. Federal courts have jurisdiction over a case or controversy under Article III of the U.S.Constitution only if the plaintiff has standing to sue.
Kerchner v. Obama,
612 F.3d 204, 207 (3dCir. 2010)

A generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governancedoes not suffice to confer standing on one such citizen.
Drake v. Obama
, 664 F.3d 774, 779 (9thCir. 2011)

The injury plaintiff asserts is
not
particular to him.

Quote:

See Kerchner
,612 F.3d at 207 (citing
Berg v. Obama
, 586 F.3d 234, 238-39 (3d Cir. 2009))

.

.

This Court is bound by the D.C. Circuit’s decisions, which are based on the notion thatchallenges to a public official’s authority concern a right of the entire public that only a public representative can protect.
See Taitz
, 707 F. Supp. 2d at 3

Dropping like flies.

Docket Update...

...

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12-cv-00001-JDB

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
Date Terminated: 06/06/2012
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

06/14/2012 20 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 19 Memorandum & Opinion, 18 Order on Motion to Expedite, Order on Motion for CM/ECF Password, Order on Motion for Discovery, Order on Motion for Hearing, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Dismiss, by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 4616049283. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (dr) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

06/19/2012 21 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 20 Notice of Appeal. (dr) (Entered: 06/19/2012)