SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34521
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#1

Post by realist » Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:54 am

I could not find a thread for this case. If I've missed it, someone please point it out to me and I'll move it.





SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION





Case. No.: 2012-CA-008644 B


Judge: John M. Mott


Next Hearing: Feb. 15, 2013, 10:00 a.m.


COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND


PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND


DECLARATORY JUDGMENT





JURY TRIAL REQUESTED





MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY,


4000MASSACHUSETTS AVE,NW, #1518


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20016,


TELEPHONE: (202-478-0371),


PLAINTIFF,





VS.





YVETTE ALEXANDER


1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE,NWSUITE 400


WASHINGTON, DC 20004


TELEPHONE: (202) 724-8068,





AND





DON R. DINAN


600 14TH STREET NW, SUITE 400


WASHINGTON D.C. 20005


TELEPHONE: (202) 216-8302,





AND





WILLIAM LIGHTFOOT


2001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE,NWSUITE 450


WASHINGTON D.C. 20006


TELEPHONE: (202) 659-5500,


DEFENDANTS.Not yet at Jack's either, that I could find.





Complaint .... [/break1]civilforfeiture.com/blog/ECComplaint.pdf]http://www.civilforfeiture.com/blog/ECComplaint.pdf





And the below was posted at freepers...





Sibley files motion to hold Obama in Contempt of Court


AMO PROBOS ^ | November 29, 2012 | MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY





Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 2:15:59 AM by ABrit





At the November 29, 2012, Preliminary Injunction hearing in Sibley vs. Alexander, Dinan and Lightfoot – a class action lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court against the three District of Columbia Electors of the so-called Electoral College – Barack Hussein Obama, II, refused to produce his original Short-Form “Certificate of Live Birth” and his original Long-Form “Certificate of Live Birth”. These documents are the sole evidence that Mr. Obama has proffered to the American People to establish his Article II, §1, eligibility for the Office of President. I had subpoenaed those documents for the hearing. As a result, I today filed my Verified Motion for Rule to Show Cause Why Barack Hussein Obama, II, Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court. Judge Mott has reserved decision on that motion pending a response by the Defendants.





What exactly is the objection to producing your [highlight]original[/highlight] birth certificates when subpoenaed? No objection was filed by Mr. Obama or his attorneys.





(Excerpt) Read more at amoprobos.blogspot.co.uk ...Of course, he can't produce his original. There would have to be a court order directing HI DOH to do so. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.





Nevertheless, here is the link to the Motion to hold Obama (non-party) in Contempt of Court for failure to produce his "original" BC.





[/break1]montgomeryblairsibley.com/library/contempt.pdf]http://www.montgomeryblairsibley.com/li ... ntempt.pdf


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#2

Post by Piffle » Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:18 am

I knew I'd read about this case somewhere. Neon posted about it [link]here,viewtopic.php?f=88&t=7817[/link]. Apparently, Sibley is also pursuing a new-and-improved quo warranto action in D.C.I guess it's fashionable this season to sue electors and, as we all know, Sibley is a trend-setting courtier if there ever was one.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34521
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#3

Post by realist » Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:26 am

I knew I'd read about this case somewhere. Neon posted about it [link]here,viewtopic.php?f=88&t=7817[/link]. Apparently, Sibley is also pursuing a new-and-improved quo warranto action in D.C.I guess it's fashionable this season to sue electors and, as we all know, Sibley is a trend-setting courtier if there ever was one.I thought that was it also. Too. but the list of defendants is different than in this one I just posted about and the case number is different.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14920
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#4

Post by Reality Check » Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:14 am

Next Hearing: [highlight]Feb. 15, 2013[/highlight], 10:00 a.m.Glad to see they are rushing this one through. :lol:
Edit: I added this one to the Birther Calendar also.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11521
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#5

Post by Whatever4 » Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:23 am

Paging Justin.... :- When did he say the birthers were gone?


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
Tomtech
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:08 pm
Location: Betwixt the Big and Black Cypress Bayous

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#6

Post by Tomtech » Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:35 pm

Since the President has admitted that the facts in the Complaint related to his parentage were true, is their any need to produce the COLB and LFBC? Is there a possibility that President will be represented through a Special Appearance at the hearing, and assert that the Subpoena was a "fishing expedition" and that the documents requested didn't have a bearing on the case since the facts presented in the Vattel challenge were common knowledge and previously admitted as true by the President and, also to, file a motion for sanctions?


The Chriscam is open for public viewing.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 17321
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#7

Post by RTH10260 » Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:47 am

Next Hearing: [highlight]Feb. 15, 2013[/highlight], 10:00 a.m.Glad to see they are rushing this one through. :lol:
Edit: I added this one to the Birther Calendar also.
Does this mean that Romney retroactovly wwill move into the WH whrn these three electors are prebented from voting :?: =))



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14920
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#8

Post by Reality Check » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:51 am

Does this mean that Romney retroactively will move into the WH when these three electors are retroactively prebented from voting :?: =))


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#9

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:52 am

No.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24545
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#10

Post by bob » Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:23 am



Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#11

Post by SueDB » Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:28 am

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) =)) =)) =)) =)) =)) -xx -xx -xx


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9485
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#12

Post by GreatGrey » Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:41 am

Ummm. is this it? From the kilted one's site[/break1]com/library/Omnibus1.pdf]http://montgomeryblairsibley.com/librar ... us1.pdfAnd the DC Code, already highlighted, page 2[/break1]com/library/DCCode11001.pdf]http://montgomeryblairsibley.com/librar ... e11001.pdf.


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#13

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:46 am

I believe the Court of Appeals will be able to determine very quickly that all of the Electors in D.C. are qualified to serve. Any attempt by Sibley to have the Court focus on anything other than Electors will fail.Buffoon.



User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7763
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#14

Post by PatGund » Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:35 pm

Sibley sends a "subpoena" to Occidental College and uses Dr. Orly's office as the address to bring the documents too.I strung Dr. Orly's copies together and placed it on Scribd [/break1]scribd.com/doc/115361503/Sibley-Occidental120312] ... ntal120312



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34521
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#15

Post by realist » Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:44 pm

cross-posting...





He's also filed a motion in this case for the court to appoint an examiner to take out-of-state depositions in HI





PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION FOR


APPOINTMENT OF AN EXAMINER


TO TAKE OUT-OF-STATE DEPOSITION


AND SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTSHe wants to depose the HI DOH Custodian of Records and Onaka and the Custodian of Records for Kapiolani Hospital and Records Custodian of the Hawaii State Archives, Kekauluohi Building.





5. The reasons why the depositions and documents are required in this action is to


establish if in fact Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham, a citizen of the United States and Barrack Hussein Obama, Senior. Simply stated, if in fact, Barack Hussein Obama, II was not born in Hawaii as he has claimed, then he would not be a citizen eligible to be President. In so much as all publicly released copies of documents which purport to establish his birth at such a time and place are questionable at best – forgeries at worst – the production of the original documents are necessary to settle the question of the circumstances of Barack Hussein Obama, II’s birth definitely. In support of this motion, Plaintiff attaches hereto the Affidavit of Michael Zullo.





[...]





7. Plaintiff proposes for the Examiner: John S. Carroll, Law Offices of John S. Carroll,


810 Richards St, Suite 810, Honolulu, HI 96813, Phone: (808) 526-9111, Fax:(808) 545-3800 who


has agreed to perform as an Examiner if appointed by this Court.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the relief requested herein.AND


RULE 12.I(A) STATEMENT


The undersigned [highlight]has consulted with Defendants’ counsel who has indicated that he does/does not oppose the relief requested herein[/highlight]..I suspect I know what defense counsel (all of them) will reply.





In other words, he's either not actually consulted or he did not designate their response in his statement.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 14944
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#16

Post by kate520 » Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:54 pm

I suspect, as I'm sure y'all do, too, that the reason Sibley spends so much time :yankyank: in public is because he wears a kilt. Non? ;;)


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

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

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#17

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:58 pm




He's also filed a motion in this case for the court to appoint an examiner to take out-of-state depositions in HI





PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF AN EXAMINER TO TAKE OUT-OF STATE DEPOSITION AND SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTSHe wants to depose the HI DOH Custodian of Records and Onaka and the Custodian of Records for Kapiolani Hospital and Records Custodian of the Hawaii State Archives, Kekauluohi Building.


7. Plaintiff proposes for the Examiner: John S. Carroll, Law Offices of John S. Carroll,


810 Richards St, Suite 810, Honolulu, HI 96813, Phone: (808) 526-9111, Fax:(808) 545-3800 who


has agreed to perform as an Examiner if appointed by this Court.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the relief requested herein.Thought this name (Carroll) sounded familiar (William Wolf v Loretta Fuddy).


[/break1]scribd.com/doc/74843071/Wolf-v-Fuddy-Complaint] ... -Complaint



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#18

Post by SueDB » Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:02 pm

It's not like you couldn't ask a reputable name attorney to deal with this rather than another fringe RWNJ buffoon and serial birfer.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

Wild Bill
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:46 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#19

Post by Wild Bill » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:51 pm

Case removed & subsequent actions including motion for sanctions! Docket:12/12/2012 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court of the District of Columbia, case number 2012 CA 008644 B filed by WILLIAM P. LIGHTFOOT, DONALD R. DINAN, YVETTE ALEXANDER. (Attachments: # 1 Superior Court complaint, # 2 Summons, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet, # 4 Superior Court plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 12/12/2012) 12/12/2012 2 ERRATA by YVETTE ALEXANDER, DONALD R. DINAN, WILLIAM P. LIGHTFOOT. (Attachments: # 1 Superior Court Order setting PI hearing)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 12/12/2012) 12/12/2012 3 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by All Defendants. Case related to Case No. 12-1832. (Saindon, Andrew) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/14/2012: # 1 Related Case Form) (dr) (Entered: 12/12/2012) 12/12/2012 Case Assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. (ls, ) (Entered: 12/13/2012) 12/12/2012 Case Assigned to Judge John D. Bates. Judge Rudolph Contreras no longer assigned to the case. (ls, ) (Entered: 12/13/2012) 12/13/2012 4 NOTICE of Filing of Civil Cover Sheet and Notice of Designation of Related Civil Case by YVETTE ALEXANDER, DONALD R. DINAN, WILLIAM P. LIGHTFOOT (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Notice of designation of related civil case)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 12/13/2012) 12/14/2012 5 MOTION for Order to Show Cause by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(rdj) (Entered: 12/17/2012) 12/14/2012 6 MOTION to Remand by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (dr) (Entered: 12/17/2012) 12/14/2012 7 MOTION (First Emergency Omnibus Motion) for Immediate Status Conference, MOTION for Immediate Re-Hearing, and MOTION to Expedite rulings on Sibley's pending Motions by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (dr) (Entered: 12/17/2012) 12/14/2012 8 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Notice of Removal, by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (dr) (Entered: 12/17/2012) 12/19/2012 9 MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION to Stay All Discovery, MOTION for Sanctions by YVETTE ALEXANDER, DONALD R. DINAN, WILLIAM P. LIGHTFOOT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 12/19/2012) 12/19/2012 10 Memorandum in opposition to re 6 MOTION to Remand, 7 MOTION for Hearing MOTION to Expedite, 5 MOTION for Order to Show Cause, 8 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Notice of Removal, and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by YVETTE ALEXANDER, DONALD R. DINAN, WILLIAM P. LIGHTFOOT. (Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 12/19/2012) Meanwhile Sibley touts his Second Emergency Motion - not filed as of today - over at ORYR:[/break1]blogspot.com/2012/12/national-archives-caught-altering-hawaii-records.html]http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot ... cords.html (with links to motion)



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24545
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#20

Post by bob » Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:15 pm

From ORYR:


Yesterday, Sibley filed an Emergency Second Motion for Order to Release Privacy Act Protected Records. That motion presented photographic evidence to Judge Bates that someone has tampered with the evidence related to Obama’s putative birth in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Sibley had subpoena from the National Archives the “Arrival Records” for August 1 through August 10, 1961, of all passengers arriving in Honolulu, Hawaii to see if records existed that Obama and his mother arrived in Hawaii during that time frame. What NARA produced were two microfilm spools of the arrival records for July 28 through August 1, 1961 and August 8 through August 12, 1961. [highlight]As detailed in the Emergency Motion, the original date on the box of “August 7” has been altered by “white-out” and a new date of “August 1” had been written on the box[/highlight]. Proof of that alteration comes from a photograph of the same box taken nine months earlier which reveals the date was originally “August 7”. Thus, [highlight]indisputably the box has been tampered with – a criminal offense – to hide the fact that the microfilm for the August 2 through August 7, 1961 arrivals is now missing[/highlight]....I'm curious how we suddenly jumped to a criminal offense? I mean, if I worked at the National Archives, discovered that a record was incorrectly labeled, and fixed that label, aren't I doing my job?


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#21

Post by Piffle » Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:17 pm

Perhaps this thread needs a title change. It started out in D.C. Superior Court (equivalent of a state court) but has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (federal court).Should the title read "(Various DC Courts)"? :D



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34521
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#22

Post by realist » Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Update...





12/19/2012 [link]9,[/link] MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION to Stay All Discovery, MOTION for Sanctions by YVETTE ALEXANDER, DONALD R. DINAN, WILLIAM P. LIGHTFOOT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 12/19/2012)15 Plaintiff, too, may fairly be characterized as a serial litigant. As of Dec. 10, 2012,


[highlight]there were some 135 reported and unreported decisions on WestLaw since 1998 with plaintiff as


a party.[/highlight]




ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8511
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#23

Post by verbalobe » Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:12 pm

From ORYR:


Yesterday, Sibley filed an Emergency Second Motion for Order to Release Privacy Act Protected Records. That motion presented photographic evidence to Judge Bates that someone has tampered with the evidence related to Obama’s putative birth in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Sibley had subpoena from the National Archives the “Arrival Records” for August 1 through August 10, 1961, of all passengers arriving in Honolulu, Hawaii to see if records existed that Obama and his mother arrived in Hawaii during that time frame. What NARA produced were two microfilm spools of the arrival records for July 28 through August 1, 1961 and August 8 through August 12, 1961. [highlight]As detailed in the Emergency Motion, the original date on the box of “August 7” has been altered by “white-out” and a new date of “August 1” had been written on the box[/highlight]. Proof of that alteration comes from a photograph of the same box taken nine months earlier which reveals the date was originally “August 7”. Thus, [highlight]indisputably the box has been tampered with – a criminal offense – to hide the fact that the microfilm for the August 2 through August 7, 1961 arrivals is now missing[/highlight]....I'm curious how we suddenly jumped to a criminal offense? I mean, if I worked at the National Archives, discovered that a record was incorrectly labeled, and fixed that label, aren't I doing my job?Yeah. This stands out to me as a signal example of birther idiocy or pathology or whatever IT is that these people suffer from. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)



Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#24

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:13 pm

From ORYR:


Yesterday, Sibley filed an Emergency Second Motion for Order to Release Privacy Act Protected Records. That motion presented photographic evidence to Judge Bates that someone has tampered with the evidence related to Obama’s putative birth in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Sibley had subpoena from the National Archives the “Arrival Records” for August 1 through August 10, 1961, of all passengers arriving in Honolulu, Hawaii to see if records existed that Obama and his mother arrived in Hawaii during that time frame. What NARA produced were two microfilm spools of the arrival records for July 28 through August 1, 1961 and August 8 through August 12, 1961. As detailed in the Emergency Motion, the original date on the box of “August 7” has been altered by “white-out” and a new date of “August 1” had been written on the box. Proof of that alteration comes from a photograph of the same box taken nine months earlier which reveals the date was originally “August 7”. Thus, indisputably the box has been tampered with – a criminal offense – to hide the fact that the microfilm for the August 2 through August 7, 1961 arrivals is now missing....I'm curious how we suddenly jumped to a criminal offense? I mean, if I worked at the National Archives, discovered that a record was incorrectly labeled, and fixed that label, aren't I doing my job?Oh for doG's sake! I have been doing research for the past 12 years at the Denver Regional Archives. I have run across many corrections on archival boxes, none done with any malicious or "fraudulent" intent. And to think that these morons believe that changing a 7 to a 1 on a microfilm box label is a felonious offense. ](*,) ](*,)





Over the last 2-1/2 years I compiled an index of nearly 31,000 maps housed at the Archives. These are General Land Office plats of mineral lands in Colorado (1868-1963). Tomorrow I will be visiting the Archives to submit a list of the plats that I found were filed in the wrong archival box. I will definitely share with the Archivists that anyone making the corrections will be subject to criminal indictment.




Off Topic
Foggy, Yeah, yeah I know....now back to being an avid Fogbow reader! :hug:



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24545
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

SIBLEY v ALEXANDER, et al. (USDC D.C.) Formerly in (D.C. Sup Ct.)

#25

Post by bob » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:43 pm

[/break1]com/112-cv-01984-jdb-sibley-v-alexander-et-al-d-c-obama-case]OBC:12/19/2012 10 Memorandum in opposition to re 6 MOTION to Remand, 7 MOTION for Hearing MOTION to Expedite, 5 MOTION for Order to Show Cause, 8 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Notice of Removal, and Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by YVETTE ALEXANDER, DONALD R. DINAN, WILLIAM P. LIGHTFOOT. (Saindon, Andrew) (Entered: 12/19/2012)12/19/2012 11 Verified MOTION for Rule to Show Cause why Harvard Law School should not be held in contempt of court by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (dr) (Entered: 12/20/2012)12/19/2012 12 Emergency Second MOTION for Order to Release Privacy Act-Protected Records and Expedited consideration based upon Prima Facie Evidence of destruction of evidence related to Obama’s birth by MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY (dr) (Entered: 12/20/2012)


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”