Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

Post Reply
User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7767
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

Sibley's Dumb Lawsuits

#1

Post by PatGund » Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:19 pm

Right now it's a draft copy, but:[/break1]com/library/DraftFERAmotion.pdf]http://montgomeryblairsibley.com/librar ... motion.pdfBasically he's shopping around for a defendant (isn't he still disbarred??) who has been imprisoned due to the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Public Law 111-21. "I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTThe Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Public Law 111-21, putatively signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama, II on May 20, 2009, under which Defendant has been indicted/convicted is void as it never was “presented” and signed into law by a legitimate President. As such, Defendant’s indictment/conviction must be declared null and void and the Defendant immediately released from custody"The first four pages is his legal challenge that FERA is invalid because President Obama is supposedly "not a real president". The remaining eight pages is the usual birther blather, ending with:""III. THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTSFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 17(c) “Producing Documents and Objects” permits the Court to order a witness to “produce the designated items in court before trial or before they are to be offered in evidence.” Defendant recognizes that the standard for securing pretrial document production under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) is that the information is relevant, admissible, and specific. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 700 (1974). Defendant’s request for documents meets this standard for each category of documents as detailed infra:1. The original COLBs from Obama to allow Defendant’s Expert Document Examiners to evaluate and testify pursuant to Rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence, as to the authenticity of those documents;"So basically he wants a chance to give Zebest, Polland/Polarik, Vogt, Irey, and the usual gang of idiots a chance to get their sticky paws all over the original. Let us know how that works out for you.....A PDF of his press release [link]is here,http://www.montgomeryblairsibley.com/li ... ress11.pdf[/link]"To date, no federal court has taken up the merits of Obama's eligibility relying instead on the dubious legal doctrine of “standing” to dismiss every lawsuit. Accordingly, Sibley has released his Stuxnet-like Motion to Dismiss Indictment into the federal prison system. The Motion makes the simple argument that: (i) no federal law is valid under Article I, § 7, cl. 2, of the Constitution unless it is presented to the President, (ii) Obama is not a legitimate President and thus (iii) his signing of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (“FERA”) is void. Accordingly, every person charge and/or convicted under FERA is entitled to be released."[link]Struxnet is a computer worm,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet[/link] It's rather interesting he's describing this in this fashion. Seems almost like a form of judicial abuse or judicial terrorism...."Sibley has sent the Motion to prisoners convicted under FERA and their defense attorneys and expects his Motion to be filed in dozens of FERA cases by them in the near future. Sibley said: “Like the Stuxnet computer virus, my Motion will circulate among the prison and population and criminal defense bar both of which are very adept at bringing legal pleadings to Court. Once the Motion is properly presented, the Courts will be forced to deal with the merits of Obama’s legitimacy. The doctrine of ‘standing’ will no longer be a barrier to adjudication. My Motion forces the Courts to make the choice of issuing the requested subpoenas – thereby finally settling the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President – or affirming that the Sixth Amendment has been repealed by Judicial fiat because it threatens the status quo. Either way, we will know where we stand as a People and whether it is time to convene a Constitutional Convention to re-assert our fundamental rights in a federal judicial system which has evolved to ignore those sacred rights when they challenge the ruling class.”Seems like, hell. This IS, IMHO, a form of judicial abuse or judicial terrorism.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27381
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#2

Post by bob » Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:27 pm

Sibley has sent the Motion to prisoners convicted under FERA and their defense attorneys and expects his Motion to be filed in dozens of FERA cases by them in the near future. Sibley said: “Like the Stuxnet computer virus, my Motion will circulate among the prison and population and criminal defense bar both of which are very adept at bringing legal pleadings to Court. Once the Motion is properly presented, the Courts will be forced to deal with the merits of Obama’s legitimacy." ](*,)


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#3

Post by BFB » Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:40 pm

So if I'm reading correctly, what Congress passed (overwhelmingly) and what Obama signed was an amendment to federal criminal law that included mortgage lending businesses under the definition of financial institutions ... as a means to stop slick mortgage bankers from cheating people. So Sibley wants to free anyone convicted of financial shenanigans, the likes of which led to the Great Recession.Mr. Sibley, why do you hate America?



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

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#4

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:52 pm

So basically, this be-kilted scumbag wants to free criminals because he hates the President and has racist delusions about him.I hope whatever defendant takes him up on this rubbish rots in prison, as they certainly will.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10462
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#5

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:24 pm

Yeah, that's a 12(b) dismissal in search of a plaintiff.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27381
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#6

Post by bob » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:26 pm

Even in Sibley's wildest of dreams, some court will drop of footnote to explain why this particular claim lacks merit. And every case thereafter will cite the first case. (See, e.g., Ankeny.)


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#7

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:35 pm

Yeah, that's a 12(b) dismissal in search of a plaintiff.Actually, Sibley's piece of malpractice is styled as a motion to dismiss a criminal case. His attempt to shop this garbage around looks like not only malpractice, but unlicensed practice of law to me.



obot 10241408971650
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:25 pm

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#8

Post by obot 10241408971650 » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:45 pm

Mocking coverage from the DCistSibley teaming up Floridian financial criminals: Perfect. Of course, if this pans out, Sibley will have to offer his sage legal advice from afar. He was kicked off the Sunshine State bar in 2008.[/break1]com/2013/02/birther_lawyer_attempts_to_recruit.php]http://dcist.com/2013/02/birther_lawyer ... ecruit.php



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27381
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#9

Post by bob » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:12 pm

Yeah, that's a 12(b) dismissal in search of a plaintiff.Actually, Sibley's piece of malpractice is styled as a motion to dismiss a criminal case.Right. Just request the court to take judicial notice of the fact that Obama won a majority of the votes in the 2008 Electoral College, which was certified by Congress. And then he took the oath of office.And cite a case about de facto officer doctrine, for fun.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#10

Post by Piffle » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:25 pm

Yeah, that's a 12(b) 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissal in search of a plaintiff.FIFY.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27381
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#11

Post by bob » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:26 pm

Yeah, that's a 12(b) 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissal in search of a plaintiff.According to Guthrie, that section applies only to prisoners.





Oh, wait....


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#12

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:40 pm

This would be governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, at least as presented in Sibley's "Motion to Dismiss."





Sibley seems to believe he can snooker someone currently facing criminal prosecution into filing his piece of garbage as a motion in their criminal case. As such, it would be denied as frivolous, but not under civil rules.





(It seems more likely that an incarcerated prisoner with too much time on his hands would attempt arguments like these in a frivolous habeas petition or some other form of post-conviction action. If filed as a § 1983 or something like that, it could be subject to the PLRA.)



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10462
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#13

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:41 pm

Yeah, that's a 12(b) dismissal in search of a plaintiff.Actually, Sibley's piece of malpractice is styled as a motion to dismiss a criminal case.





His attempt to shop this garbage around looks like not only malpractice, but unlicensed practice of law to me.Of course it's a motion to dismiss a criminal case. I don't know what I was thinking when I assumed that a challenge to a conviction based on an allegation that a statute is facially invalid on constitutional grounds would be filed as a collateral attack.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#14

Post by mimi » Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:26 pm

Mocking coverage from the DCistSibley teaming up Floridian financial criminals: Perfect. Of course, if this pans out, Sibley will have to offer his sage legal advice from afar. He was kicked off the Sunshine State bar in 2008.[/break1]com/2013/02/birther_lawyer_attempts_to_recruit.php]http://dcist.com/2013/02/birther_lawyer ... ecruit.phpSo he got some!But will Sibley actually find convicts to take up his cause? Apparently so. In an email to DCist, Sibley writes that he has found some interested parties from perhaps the only place where one would expect sympathizers to his aimless cause might be found. "I have gotten positive feedback through third parties from three who were convicted under FERA in Florida," Sibley writes.Sibley teaming up Floridian financial criminals: Perfect. Of course, if this pans out, Sibley will have to offer his sage legal advice from afar. He was kicked off the Sunshine State bar in 2008.



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

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#15

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:12 pm

Of course it's a motion to dismiss a criminal case. I don't know what I was thinking when I assumed that a challenge to a conviction based on an allegation that a statute is facially invalid on constitutional grounds would be filed as a collateral attack.Because his rhetoric doesn't appear to match the document. And I agree that he is far more likely to find a "buyer" for this crap with someone who is already convicted and serving time and a bit stir crazy than someone who still has a chance of winning their case and being acquitted.



TexasFilly
Posts: 18689
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#16

Post by TexasFilly » Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:21 pm

Yeah, that's a 12(b) dismissal in search of a plaintiff.Actually, Sibley's piece of malpractice is styled as a motion to dismiss a criminal case. His attempt to shop this garbage around looks like not only malpractice, but unlicensed practice of law to me.Not to mention barratry.


I love the poorly educated!!!

Kevin McCarthy: Paul Ryan playing with a head injury -- Jon Lovett

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

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#17

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:28 pm

Oh, I like this:Defendant contends that the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (“FERA”), Public Law 111-21 and putatively signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama, II on May 20, 2009 and under which Defendant has been indicted/convicted is void as it never was “presented” to a legitimate President. As such the indictment is void and this Court must dismiss it and immediately release Defendant from custody.Because apparently, being under indictment and having been already convicted are two procedurally identical situations where you can just cut and paste the same lump of nonsensical text, substituting "convicted" for "indicted" depending on the situation.I think this clown is bucking for Orly's spot as twlitohu.The relief requested is downright hilarious.WHEREFORE Defendant prays that the Court direct its Clerk to immediately issuesubpoenas duces tecum as requested by Defendant for the above-referenced documents and thereafter find that in so much as Barack Hussein Obama, II, is not eligible to be President, Public Law 111-21 was never “presented” to a legitimate President and signed into law. Thus Defendant must immediately be released from custody.So in other words, first the defendant must be immediately released. Then there is a fishing expedition to determine if there is a reason to dismiss the indictment.You would think, in a document entitled "Motion to Dismiss," that the relief requested would involve actually dismissing the indictment, vacating the conviction (I guess to Sibley it is no big deal which), but NOOOOO. The relief requested is SUBPOENAS.Idiot.



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

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#18

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:10 pm

Oh dear. I believe there is some serious butthurt among birthers.To date, no federal court has taken up the merits of Obama's eligibility relying instead on the dubious legal doctrine of “standing” to dismiss every lawsuit.[/break1]montgomeryblairsibley.com/library/Press11.pdf]http://www.montgomeryblairsibley.com/li ... ress11.pdfThese konstitushunal eggsperts still haven't figured it out.http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... 15#p387045



BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#19

Post by BFB » Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:04 pm

He's at it again.Two weeks ago Montgomery Blair Sibley released his Stuxnet-like Motionchallenging Barack Hussein Obama, II’s eligibility to be President. That motion targeted specificfederal inmates convicted under federal criminal laws putatively signed by Obama alleging thatObama is ineligible to be President and thus the criminal laws he signed are void.Today, appropriately on President’s Day, Sibley has released a new computer-virus like Motionwhich seeks to emulate a computer generated Directed-Denial-of-Service network attack on theFederal Criminal Justice System. Sibley’s Nyguen Motion arises from the United StatesSupreme Court’s opinion in Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69 (2003), which held that anydecision of an improperly constituted judicial body must be vacated. In total, Obama hasappointed 173 judges, namely two Justices to the Supreme Court, 30 judges to the United StatesCourts of Appeals and 141 judges to the United States District Courts.The argument of the Nyguen Motion is straightforward: (i) Article II, Section 2, clause 2 grantsthe President the power to “appoint” federal judges, (ii) Obama is not eligible to be President ashe is not a “natural born Citizen” and has refused to tendered any admissible proof that he is evena U.S. Citizen, (iii) therefore, his appointments are void under the holding of Nguyen v. UnitedStates and (iv) accordingly, all judicial acts by those judges – specifically including incarceratingprisoners – are void.Sibley has released the Nguyen Motion to prisoners convicted by Obama-appointed Judges andtheir defense attorneys and expects his Motion to be filed in dozens of cases by them in the nearfuture. Sibley said: “Like a DDoS computer attack, my Nyguen Motion will circulate among theprison population and criminal defense bar. Once the Motion is properly presented, the Courtswill be forced to deal with the merits of Obama’s legitimacy as the doctrine of ‘standing’ will nolonger be a barrier to adjudication. My Nyguen Motion forces the Courts to make the choice ofissuing the requested subpoenas – thereby finally settling the issue of Obama’s eligibility to bePresident – or affirming that the Sixth Amendment has been repealed by Judicial fiat because itthreatens the status quo. Either way, we will know as a People whether it is time to convene aConstitutional Convention to re-assert our fundamental rights.”[/break1]montgomeryblairsibley.com/library/Press12.pdf]http://www.montgomeryblairsibley.com/li ... ress12.pdf :lol:



User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#20

Post by BillTheCat » Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:08 pm

=D> Good luck with that.


'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45349
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#21

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:09 pm

Standing may not be a problem, but the de facto officer doctrine would be. Assuming the merits, the claims are frivolous.



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

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#22

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:42 pm

Standing may not be a problem, but the de facto officer doctrine would be. Assuming the merits, the claims are frivolous.Not to mention unlicensed practice of law, which is especially serious when committed by a disbarred lawyer, as well as improper solicitation of clients, which would be improper even if he were licensed. His admission of malicious intent is underscored by his own comparison of his incompetently drafted "motion" to the Stuxnet worm, a piece of malware designed to destroy computer equipment and industrial hardware.One hopes the illegal conduct of this disbarred scumbag in his attempt to horn his way into the criminal bar will lead to his own practice before a criminal court, as a pro se defendant.It's probably also barratry in any jurisdiction that still recognizes it.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 29158
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#23

Post by Foggy » Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:18 pm

It's Nguyen, not Nyguen, and it's pronounced "win".As in Ngo, Phuyt, Nguyen! :cheer:


When reality is outlawed only outlaws will have reality.

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 16187
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#24

Post by ZekeB » Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:18 pm

Doesn't that translate to "Charlie" in English, Foggy?


Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34982
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Sibley's Judicial Worm.....

#25

Post by realist » Tue May 07, 2013 5:42 pm

There are many Sibley threads re his cases, plus this "worm" one. Since this post covers pretty much all of them I'm going to dump it here.





Sibley "updates" his BS "cases"...





[link]Amo Probos,http://amoprobos.blogspot.com/2013/05/s ... ation.html[/link]





Tuesday, May 7, 2013


[...]





Here is the present status of my efforts:





First, in February I released my Nyguen Motion to the federal prisoner population. The Nyguen Motion argues that: (i) Article II, Section 2, clause 2 grants the President the power to “appoint” federal judges, (ii) Obama is not eligible to be President as he is not a “natural born Citizen” and has refused to tendered any admissible proof that he is even a U.S. Citizen, (iii) therefore, his appointments are void [highlight]under the holding of Nguyen v. United States and (iv) accordingly, all judicial acts by those judges – specifically including incarcerating prisoners – are void.[/highlight] :roll: I have been in contact with a dozen “prison lawyers” and the Nyguen Motion has been well received. The first Nyguen Motion was filed in Arizona federal court. The judge in that matter gave the government five (5) months to respond. The usual response time is ten (10) days. (Now Dali’s Clock image begins to make sense).





Second, in Sibley vs. Obama, I invoked 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. That suit was dismissed by the District Court. I perfected an appeal to which Mr. Obama moved to Summarily Affirm the District Court dismissal. [highlight]I filed my Opposition on March 8, 2013, but the panel of three judges of the Circuit Court have refused to rule upon the government's motion.[/highlight]





Third, in Sibley vs. Alexander et al – which is a[highlight]class action[/highlight] complaint filed in D.C. Superior Court against the District of Columbia members of the so-called Electoral College – Judge Mott dismissed the suit on March 5, 2013. I filed on March 12, 20013, a [highlight]Motion to Vacate claiming the Order was asinine.[/highlight] Judge Mott still has not ruled on that Motion to Vacate.





Fourth, in Sibley v D.C. Board of Elections which invoked an obscure D.C. law that allows a D.C. voter to mount a post-election challenge to an elected officials qualification for office, the Court ruled on March 13, 2013, that because it refused to address the case until after the inauguration of Mr. Obama, the matter is now "moot" and must be dismissed. As no appeal is allowed of that decision, [highlight]I have sued the judges of the DC Court of Appeal personally claiming in essence that for them to refuse to rule promptly in a matter so as to render it moot is judicial malfeasance warranting imposition of personally liability.[/highlight] Not on my watch will such judicial hi-jinks go unchallenged.





Last, I know that I am making progress as my blog posts are being spammed by Obots seeking to prevent clear discussion of the issues I raise. Clearly, the idea of civilized resolution of a very serious question through my exercise of the rights of First Amendment Petitioning and Freedom of the Press terrifies these anonymous tyrants. I think that is the reason our wise Framers added it to the Constitution so shortly after they realized what they had created and the dangers a federal government posed to individual rights.





Posted by Montgomery Blair Sibley at 8:06 AM


Labels: Me vs. Obama and Holder


0 comments:





:yankyank:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”