Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#201

Post by Piffle » Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:33 pm

[highlight]Amo Probos[/highlight] (Sibley's Blog): [/break1]blogspot.com/2013/02/my-petition-to-congress.html]My Petition to Congress:My Latin's rusty but I think the name of his blog means "I like to play proctologist".



User avatar
Dr. Caligari
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:22 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#202

Post by Dr. Caligari » Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:42 pm

Would give lawyers disbarred ex-lawyers a bad nameFIFY.


J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#203

Post by bob » Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:44 pm

I just noticed the questions presented in Sibley's (just denied) [/break1]com/library/PetitionQW1.pdf]cert. petition:


WHETHER Congress intended or is able to relegate to the “caprice of the executive” the right of Petitioner to bring the ancient writ of quo warranto before an Article III court?





WHETHER the judiciary – using Orwellian tactics – can swap the employment by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) of the imperative auxiliary verb “shall” with discretionary auxiliary verb “may”?





WHETHER the prohibition against legal indeterminacy prohibits the [highlight]Circuit Court from employing the tactics of the [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party]Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[/highlight] of using ambiguous legal terms-of-art to acheive the same goals: a revolutionary transformation of the legal order from that envisioned by the Framers to an alternative order which permits the unregulated exercise of brute power employed to assault the fundamentals of the rule of law to the end of creating a [highlight]modern federal Volksgebundenheit and Artgleichheit[/highlight].I'm sure that third question raised a few eyebrows in the cert. pool.





From the petition:


Accordingly, the noxious doctrine of “standing” judicially-[highlight]birthed[/highlight] in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) cannot be expanded to denigrate the clear fundamental, Constitutional and statutory right of Sibley to properly “suggest” for investigation by the Grand Jury the alleged criminal behavior of federal actors....and there went Scalia's vote.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34969
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#204

Post by realist » Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:24 am

[highlight]Amo Probos[/highlight] (Sibley's Blog): [/break1]blogspot.com/2013/02/my-petition-to-congress.html]My Petition to Congress:My Latin's rusty but I think the name of his blog means "I like to play proctologist". =))


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#205

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:14 am

[highlight]Amo Probos[/highlight] (Sibley's Blog): [/break1]blogspot.com/2013/02/my-petition-to-congress.html]My Petition to Congress:My Latin's rusty but I think the name of his blog means "I like to play proctologist".You sure it's not" I'm inspected by proctologists"?



User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#206

Post by verbalobe » Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:50 am

Shorter Sibley:I partially read and fully misconstrued a Federal statute. Then I did some stupid shit. The I dd some more stupid shit. Then I was told I was being stupid, which proves everything I've been saying. It is now up to you, Congress, to complete the circle: then I shall have been ignored by every branch of government. Then I can go to my grave knowing I was right.NADT



User avatar
hw_wiz
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:31 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#207

Post by hw_wiz » Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:46 pm

In response, the District Court held that: “18 U.S.C. § 3332 cannot be enforced by private individuals.” This stunning response apparently grafted on to § 3332 a requirement that only government officials can invoke § 3332 – something that is asinine when government officials are the subject of the alleged criminal offense. I properly took an appeal of this issue to the D.C. Circuit Court which – refusing to me both briefing and oral argument – summarily affirmed the District Court’s order. I then timely filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which on February 15, 2013, denied my Petition thus confirmed a new rule that 18 U.S.C. § 3332 no longer is the law of this Nation. See: U.S. Supreme Court Case #: 12-736.IANAL but I thought that in this type of situation (the Supreme Court declines to take the case) that the Circuit Court ruling becomes a precedent for only the district that the original case was in. Other districts could interpret the rules or law differently... The Supreme Court would only be forced to get involved when two different District Courts give conflicting rulings on the same point of law.I am not agreeing with what he argued, I am just talking about a hypothetical case where the Supreme Court declines to get involved and if this makes the lower court's decision binding on the entire country.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#208

Post by bob » Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:57 pm

IANAL but I thought that in this type of situation (the Supreme Court declines to take the case) that the Circuit Court ruling becomes a precedent for only the district that the original case was in. Other districts could interpret the rules or law differently... The Supreme Court would only be forced to get involved when two different District Courts give conflicting rulings on the same point of law.





I am not agreeing with what he argued, I am just talking about a hypothetical case where the Supreme Court declines to get involved and if this makes the lower court's decision binding on the entire country.You are correct (other than SCOTUS isn't "forced" to get involved when there's a circuit split; a split, however, is a strong indication that SCOTUS will choose to get involved).





But Sibley is even wronger: The D.C. Circuit's decision wasn't published. It isn't binding on the D.C. Circuit, the D.C. District Court, or anyone else. Other than Sibley.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#209

Post by verbalobe » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:04 pm

IANAL but I thought that in this type of situation (the Supreme Court declines to take the case) that the Circuit Court ruling becomes a precedent for only the district that the original case was in. Other districts could interpret the rules or law differently... The Supreme Court would only be forced to get involved when two different District Courts give conflicting rulings on the same point of law.





I am not agreeing with what he argued, I am just talking about a hypothetical case where the Supreme Court declines to get involved and if this makes the lower court's decision binding on the entire country.You are correct (other than SCOTUS isn't "forced" to get involved when there's a circuit split; a split, however, is a strong indication that SCOTUS will choose to get involved).





But Sibley is even wronger: The D.C. Circuit's decision wasn't published. It isn't binding on the D.C. Circuit, the D.C. District Court, or anyone else. Other than Sibley.I think it's all even wronger than that -- though I'm not sure bob wasn't aware of this with his original post -- but I don't think Sibley was actually trying to make any kind of legalistic statement about precedential findings. I think he was just being hyperbolically asshole-ish. "Because SCOTUS didn't buy my argument which was based on Law X, it proves that Law X is not in force. WAAAAAAAAAAH!"





Like the assholes who claim "now that I've been denied my day in court, it means the US is sliding into anarchy," or "now that gays can marry, all our marriages are worthless."



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

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#210

Post by MetoDC » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:06 pm

IANAL but I thought that in this type of situation (the Supreme Court declines to take the case) that the Circuit Court ruling becomes a precedent for only the district that the original case was in. Other districts could interpret the rules or law differently... The Supreme Court would only be forced to get involved when two different District Courts give conflicting rulings on the same point of law.





I am not agreeing with what he argued, I am just talking about a hypothetical case where the Supreme Court declines to get involved and if this makes the lower court's decision binding on the entire country.You are correct (other than SCOTUS isn't "forced" to get involved when there's a circuit split; a split, however, is a strong indication that SCOTUS will choose to get involved).





But Sibley is even wronger: The D.C. Circuit's decision wasn't published. It isn't binding on the D.C. Circuit, the D.C. District Court, or anyone else. Other than Sibley.If, and I agree, that the ruling only applies to Sibley, is this punishment for his past act and somehow (althouth its the Court and not the legisalture) some form of Bill of Attainder? =)) =)) =)) =)) =))



User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#211

Post by Piffle » Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:15 pm

IANAL but I thought that in this type of situation (the Supreme Court declines to take the case) that the Circuit Court ruling becomes a precedent for only the district circuit that the original case was in. Other districts circuits could interpret the rules or law differently... The Supreme Court would only be forced to get involved when two different District Courts give conflicting rulings on the same point of law.





I am not agreeing with what he argued, I am just talking about a hypothetical case where the Supreme Court declines to get involved and if this makes the lower court's decision binding on the entire country.When the Supreme Court declines to take a case, the effect of the denial is this: The Supreme Court declined to take a case and, therefore, the case is over and the circuit court opinion stands. Period.





It's a concept that causes the public and the press great difficulty. Denial of cert does not mean that the Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning of the lower court. Nor does it elevate the precedential value or scope of the lower court's opinion.



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

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#212

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:25 pm

I think he was just being hyperbolically asshole-ish. "Because SCOTUS didn't buy my argument which was based on Law X, it proves that Law X is not in force. WAAAAAAAAAAH!"He was just being hyperbolically (and fractally) wrong. The Circuit Court told him he was completely full of shit and read the law wrong. It still remains in force in its real meaning, but not the be-kilted imbecile's fantasy meaning.



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#213

Post by Kriselda Gray » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:09 pm

isn't his first problem that the law states that the reporting is to be done by an attorney acting on behalf of the United States? I mean he's not an attorney at all, much less acting on their behalf, so there's no way that clause applies to him regardless of anything else, right?


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

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

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#214

Post by MetoDC » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:11 pm

isn't his first problem that the law states that the reporting is to be done by an attorney acting on behalf of the United States? I mean he's not an attorney at all, much less acting on their behalf, so there's no way that clause applies to him regardless of anything else, right?How dare you apply logic and read the statute in plain English? [-X



User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7955
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#215

Post by Flatpointhigh » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:11 pm

I think he was just being hyperbolically asshole-ish. "Because SCOTUS didn't buy my argument which was based on Law X, it proves that Law X is not in force. WAAAAAAAAAAH!"He was just being hyperbolically (and fractally) wrong. The Circuit Court told him he was completely full of shit and read the law wrong. It still remains in force in its real meaning, but not the be-kilted imbecile's fantasy meaning.http://www.fractal-recursions.com/fract ... 060301.jpg



My Name is...
Daffy Duck.. woo hoo!
Cancer broke me

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#216

Post by bob » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:26 pm

isn't his first problem that the law states that the reporting is to be done by an attorney acting on behalf of the United States? I mean he's not an attorney at all, much less acting on their behalf, so there's no way that clause applies to him regardless of anything else, right?His argument is a little more sophisticated: The statute says, in essence, a government attorney must present to the grand jury information he or she receives about a federal crime being committed.So Sibley told the U.S. Attorney about Obama's "crimes," and then demanded that the U.S. Attorney present the information to the grand jury. When Sibley received no reply from the U.S. Attorney, he filed a petition for writ of mandate to compel the U.S. Attorney to present the information to the grand jury.The D.C. district and circuit courts were not impressed; from the district court's dismissal:Citing 18 U.S.C. § 3332, Sibley also seeks mandamus to require Machen to inform the grand jury of plaintiffs identity and President Obama's alleged wire fraud, as well as to reveal what action or recommendation was taken regarding this entreaty. The Court will deny the mandamus request, in keeping with prior decisions that 18 U.S.C. § 3332 cannot be enforced by private individuals. See, e.g., Wagner v. Wainstein, 2006 U.S. App. LEXlS 16026, at *2 (D.C. Cir. June 22, 2006). Per § 3332, an individual may request that the U.S. Attorney present evidence of alleged offenses to the grand jury; but that does not directly benefit plaintiff, so it does not create Article III standing to enforce particular action by the U.S. Attorney. Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069-70 (D.C. Cir. 1997).


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#217

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:34 pm

isn't his first problem that the law states that the reporting is to be done by an attorney acting on behalf of the United States? I mean he's not an attorney at all, much less acting on their behalf, so there's no way that clause applies to him regardless of anything else, right?His argument is a little more sophisticated: The statute says, in essence, a government attorney must present to the grand jury information he or she receives about a federal crime being committed.His argument is only marginally more sophisticated. After all, the statute essentially establishes a discretionary duty by its language. It does not require the government attorney to submit gibberish from a lunatic. It is up to the attorney to establish what constitutes information about an actual crime being committed. It is not up to the lunatic.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#218

Post by bob » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:43 pm

It is up to the attorney to establish what constitutes information about an actual crime being committed. It is not up to the lunatic.Exactly: Imagine how useless the system would be if anyone -- anyone -- could force the U.S. Attorney's office to waste its time and the grand jury's time, e.g.: "Sharon Meroni informed me that she believes her neighbor is a terrorist because he looks shifty and eats meat. Walter Fitzpatrick informed me ...."


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#219

Post by verbalobe » Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:08 pm

It is up to the attorney to establish what constitutes information about an actual crime being committed. It is not up to the lunatic.Exactly: Imagine how useless the system would be if anyone -- anyone -- could force the U.S. Attorney's office to waste its time and the grand jury's time, e.g.: "Sharon Meroni informed me that she believes her neighbor is a terrorist because he looks shifty and eats meat. Walter Fitzpatrick informed me ...."Well, also by the statute's language, such referrals would be accompanied by a recommendation.




Sekrit Stuffs!
:shock: [-( [-X =; :-$ :-# :roll: =))



User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#220

Post by Kriselda Gray » Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:54 pm

So Sibley told the U.S. Attorney about Obama's "crimes," and then demanded that the U.S. Attorney present the information to the grand jury. When Sibley received no reply from the U.S. Attorney, he filed a petition for writ of mandate to compel the U.S. Attorney to present the information to the grand jury.Thanks, Bob!


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
aarrgghh
Posts: 1747
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:05 pm
Contact:

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#221

Post by aarrgghh » Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:19 pm

... I don't think Sibley was actually trying to make any kind of legalistic statement about precedential findings. I think he was just being hyperbolically asshole-ish. "Because SCOTUS didn't buy my argument which was based on Law X, it proves that Law X is not in force. WAAAAAAAAAAH!"





Like the assholes who claim "now that I've been denied my day in court, it means the US is sliding into anarchy," or "now that gays can marry, all our marriages are worthless."it's a common and transparent excuse for petty assholery. it turns their everyday misanthropy into a form of [/break1]freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2990694/posts#14]high-minded principled rebellion:





The system of law in America-local, state and national-is a joke.


It is in such a state that I do as those with power do. [highlight]I pick and choose what laws I wish to follow[/highlight] as the circumstances dictate.


They have chosen to set the standard and I choose to follow their lead.



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

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#222

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:10 pm

The system of law in America-local, state and national-is a joke.


It is in such a state that I do as those with power do. [highlight]I pick and choose what laws I wish to follow[/highlight] as the circumstances dictate.


They have chosen to set the standard and I choose to follow their lead.There's a name for people who do that.





They're called "criminals." We even have a special place to keep them.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34969
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#223

Post by realist » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:49 am

Case: Sibley v. Obama, No. 1:12-cv-01832 (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2012) (dismissing purported quo warranto suit asking court to compel Obama to demonstrate that he is a “natural born citizen”) ... Appealed





Docket Update...





03/04/2013 [link]MOTION,[/link] filed [1423358] by Barack Hussein Obama for summary affirmance. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 03/18/2013) [Service Date: 03/04/2013 by Email] Pages: 1-10. [13-5017] (Sandberg, Jeffrey)


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Circumspect
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:47 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#224

Post by Circumspect » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:58 am

What a shame that real lawyers have to spend time and valuable resources to dot each i and cross each t every time a birther attempts another clever approach grasps at another nonexisting straw. The birthers are to blame for America's financial problems.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27353
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Ex Rel Sibley v. Obama (USDC D.C.) - Quo Warranto - Acts I & II

#225

Post by bob » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:07 pm

What a shame that real lawyers have to spend time and valuable resources to dot each i and cross each t every time a birther attempts another clever approach grasps at another nonexisting straw. The birthers are to blame for America's financial problems.Footnote 6: A Columbia law student drafted the motion.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”