Montgomery Blair Sibley's memo and dismissal of June 2012 lawsuit against President Obama

7/30/2019 Montgomery Blair Sibley's memo and dismissal of June 2012 lawsuit against President Obama

1/16


2/16

Page 2 of 6

the Court denied me standing stating:

Self-declaration as a write-in candidate in the upcoming presidential

election does not enable plaintiff to challenge President Obama's

present position. A public official's title to office is an injury

particularized to an individual only if that individual has "an interestin the office itself' - if he or she sought the office at the same time as

the current officeholder. . . .Since Sibley was not a candidate in the

2008 presidential election, the injury he faces from President

Obama's current tenure in office is generalized. It seek[s] relief

that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public

at large [, so] does not state an Article III case or controversy. . . . The

Court will dismiss plaintiffs claim for lack of standing, because the

defect of standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction.

Here, I was officially a candidate in the [2012] presidential election and thus by the Courts own

order will have and indeed, am the only person who has standing and is presently willing tochallenge Obamas eligibility. The suit has obstacles including the necessity for the Attorney

General to refuse to prosecute the quo warranto action as a condition precedent to my having

standing to commence the action myself. However, at some point, the Attorney Generals refusal

to file or not file the quo warranto action must under the doctrine of waiver allow me to proceed.

In all events, that bridge can be crossed when I come to it.

IV. SIBLEY VS.ALEXANDER,DINAN &LIGHTFOOT

Under the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, Washington D.C. gets three electoral votes

even though it has no senators or representatives. In September, the D.C. Democratic Party named

City Council member Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7), attorney and longtime Democratic Party activistDon Dinan, and former City Council member William Lightfoot (D-At-Large) to serve as Obamas

D.C. electors.

Under DC ST 1-1001.08(g) Each person elected as elector of President and Vice President

shall, in the presence of the Board, take an oath or solemnly affirm that he or she will vote for the

candidates of the party he or she has been nominated to represent, and it shall be his or her duty to

vote in such manner in the electoral college.

Yet each of these three electors have also taken an oath as public servants and/or attorneys

to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and

domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely,

without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge

the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. 5 U.S.C. 3331.

Thus, presented with the conflict between their two oaths after being apprised of the


3/16

Page 3 of 6

ineligibility of Obama to serve as President each of the electors must refuse to discharge their

duties. This argument allows to a lawsuit to enjoin them based upon this rational from casting their

votes for Obama.

Moreover, I would make these three as class representatives of all the electors who would

vote for Obama. The end result is a platform to highlight the ineligibility of Obama to serve asPresident.

V. SIBLEY V.D.C.COURT OF APPEALS III

Last, I have the standing to invoke the Congressionally-authorized mechanism to challenge

Obamas eligibility. Under D.C. Code 1-1001.11(b):

(1) Within 7 days after the Board certifies the results of an

election, any person who voted in the election may petition the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals to review the election.

(2) In response to such a petition, the Court may set aside the

results certified and declare the true results of the election, or void the

election in whole or in part. . . .The Court shall void an election only

if it: (A) Determines that the candidate certified as the winner of

the election does not meet the qualifications required for office ;

or

Accordingly, as a person who indeed did vote in the election, I have standing to petition

under D.C. Code 1-1001.11(b) and force the D.C. Court of Appeals to address both the question

of Obamas lack of legal natural born Citizen status and the apparent-to-me fraudulent COLB.

Either result is dependant upon a determination or finding of fact. This will implicate thenecessity for immediate access to both legal and document experts to present sworn testimony in the

original complaint which demonstrates the legal ineligibility of Obama and the preponderance of

evidence that the COLB is a forgery.Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics,

770 A.2d 79 (DC Court of Appeals, 2001). (We hold that a petition brought pursuant to

[1-1001.11(b)] must contain a concise statement of claims and must identify facts showing an

entitlement to relief.).

Additionally, I will be asking for a special master to be appointed to marshal the facts and

law. Scolaro v. District Of Columbia Board Of Elections & Ethics, 717 A.2d 891 (DC Court of

Appeals, 1998)(We entertain this petition, and referred the case to a special master, under the

special jurisdictional grant of D.C. Code [1-1001.11(b)], which authorizes the court, upon request

by a voter, to review an election and either set aside the certified result and declare the "true result,"

or void the election in whole or in part.)

Finally, there is substantial precedent to permit compulsory discovery of evidence to support


4/16

1

Retrieved from: http://socialsecuritynumerology.com2 Retrieved from: http://socialsecuritynumerology.com

3 See:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/sheriff-joe-arpaio-cold-case-po

sse-video-on-obama-selective-service-fraud/

Page 4 of 6

the my claim of Obamas ineligibility. I would thus be seeking subpoenas for the following

documentary evidence:

1. The original COLBs from Obama;

2. All records of Obamas birth in the possession of the State of HawaiiDepartment of Health and Kapi'olani Maternity Home which is now named the Kapi'olani

Maternity & Gynecological Hospital the hospital where Obama claims he was born;

3. Authenticated copies of Obamas college applications and transcripts from

Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School documents Obama has refused

to reveal. Pursuant to Rule 901(b)(8), Federal Rules of Evidence, those documents would qualify

as Ancient Documents. Sibley believes they will provide relevant evidence of Obamas place of

birth and citizenship as such documents regularly solicit that information;

4. Authenticated copies of Obamas U.S. Passport application. That application

requires proof of U.S. citizenship as part of the application process;

5. All information regarding Obamas Social Security number in the possession

of the United States Social Security Administration. In 2010, Obama posted online on

WhiteHouse.gov his 2009 tax returns and thus his Social Security number 042-68-4425

became visible to the public. Social Security numbers starting with 042 were issued only to those

residing in Connecticut.1 When Obamas Social Security number was issued, circa 1977, Obama

was living in Hawaii and when he applied for his Social Security number it should have started with

575, 576, 750 or 7512, not 042. The Social Security Administration will have on

microfilm a copy of Obamas original SS-5 application attached to his particular Social Security

Number.

6. All information regarding Obamas Selective Service registration information

in the possession of the United States Selective Service System Data Management Center in Palatine,

Illinois. A publically released copy of Obamas Selective Service registration form SS-1 bears the

anomaly of a year date 80 when contemporary cancellation stamps all show 1980. A detailed

explanation of this anomaly which might well be the year 2008 with the 20 removed and the

08 inverted to make it appear it was stamped in 1980 can be viewed on-line.3 Obviously,

failure to timely register with the Selective Service precludes as a matter-of-law ones employment
http://socialsecuritynumerology.com/prefixes.php/750http://socialsecuritynumerology.com/prefixes.php/750http://socialsecuritynumerology.com/prefixes.php/750http://socialsecuritynumerology.com/prefixes.php/750


5/16

4 An individualwho was born after December 31, 1959, . . . and who is not so

registered or knowingly and willfully did not so register before the requirement terminated or became

inapplicable to the individual, shall be ineligible for appointment to a position in an Executive

agency.

Page 5 of 6

as President. See: 5 USC 3328(a)4.

Obtaining this evidence is crucial to establish that Obama is not eligible.

VI. BUDGET

None of this comes cheap. Each suit has filing and service of process fees associated with

it. Each suit will have the chance to seek documentary and testimonial evidence which is expensive

to obtain. Moreover, I simply do not have the personal resources to aggressively pursue these

litigation courses and keep my present job.

As such, this is the funding that will be required to prosecute the above litigation:

A. SIBLEY VSOBAMA ET AL,U.S.CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CASE

NO.:12-5198

Petition for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court filing fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $300Printing of Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,000

Total $1,300

B. SIBLEY VSOBAMA ET AL,II

District Court Filing fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $350

Service of Process on Obama, Holder & Machen fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500

Circuit Court Mandamus Filing fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $450

Printing of Mandamus Petition & Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250

U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Mandamus Filing fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $300Printing of Mandamus Petition & Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500

Circuit Court Appeal Filing fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $450

Printing of Appellate Brief & Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500

U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Certiorari Filing fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $300

Printing of Certiorari Petition & Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,500

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,100


6/16

Page 6 of 6

C. SIBLEY VS.ALEXANDER,DINAN &LIGHTFOOT

District Court Filing fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $350

Service of Process on Alexander, Dinan & Lightfoot fee . . . . . . . . . . $500

Circuit Court Mandamus Filing fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $450

Printing of Mandamus Petition & Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Mandamus Filing fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $300

Printing of Mandamus Petition & Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500

Circuit Court Appeal Filing fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $450

Printing of Appellate Brief & Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500



Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,100

D. SIBLEY V.D.C.COURT OF APPEALS III

Court of Appeals filing fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $100

Documentary Evidence Subpoenas service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,000

Local Litigation to Enforce Documentary Subpoenas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20,000



Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22,900

Total Litigation Expense Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $34,400

E. SIBLEY STIPEND

In order to pursue the above described course of litigation, I will need to devote my full time

and attention to these matters for a period of six months. If properly publicized, a fair amount of

media attention should be created requiring my time to address. As such, I am willing to commit

my time to this endeavor for six months for $7,500/month which works out to $45/hour, cheap for

the legal skill I bring to this party.

Six months @ $7,500/month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $45,000

Total Cost to Litigate Obamas Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $79,400

- E n d -


7/16


8/16


9/16


10/16


11/16


12/16


13/16


14/16


15/16


16/16

Montgomery Blair Sibley's memo and dismissal of June 2012 lawsuit against President Obama

Documents

Transcript of Montgomery Blair Sibley's memo and dismissal of June 2012 lawsuit against President Obama