Amo Probos

One Hundred and Forty Five (145) Years ago today . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 25 Jun 2021 20:00:00 +0000

. . . on the 25th of June, 1876, my great, great, grandfather, Luther R. Hare, a 19th Century hero, revered American Frontiersman and solider, spoke the last words he ever would to General Custer on that fateful day of the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

Luther Hare, West Point. 17 June 1874

He subsequently gave testimony as to what transpired at the Little Big Horn and I have uploaded it for the curious: The Reno Court of Inquiry into the Battle of the Little Big Horn. At the Inquiry, Luther Hare testified in part:

“My attention had been called to some Indians ahead by our scouts, and I spoke to General Custer about it. He told me to take the Indian scouts and go ahead and he would follow . . .”

***

"I heard a bugle-call or a trumpet-call. The [Custer] command moved down the valley to within a short distance of the timber and it was there dismounted and a skirmish line was thrown out. Up to the time the command was dismounted there were probably fifty or more Indians riding up and down in front and firing. As soon as the skirmish line was dismounted four or five hundred Indians came out of a cooley which was about four hundred yards in front of us."

***

"I saw what was supposed to be General Custer’s trail that went down on the left bank. The first evidence of the fight was a dead man of “E” Company probably 300 yards from where the final stand was made there were 28 men of “E” Company. I assisted in burying the men of “E” Company and remembered more about them."

Later on, he participated in the Nez Perce War (1877), Battle of Wounded Knee (1890) and the Spanish-American War (Philippines Theater). While in the 21st Century the activities of Luther Hare would rightfully and universally be deemed repugnant, those activitites were part of a larger cultural movement that has begot the United States of America, the highest form of individual justice and liberty known on the planet. But the battles are not yet over to achieve an even higher level of individual justice and liberty for everyone on the planet.

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 10 Mar 2021 19:40:00 +0000

On March 3, 2021, I had my ten (10) minute oral argument in my Second Amendment Lawsuit before the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Fourth Department.

A decision is expected by the Fourth of July, some 1000 days after I applied for a pistol permit in New York.

Court Refuses Request to Record Oral Argument

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Sat, 27 Feb 2021 20:01:00 +0000

By Letter dated February 23, 2021, the Appellate Division of the Fourth Department informed me that my request to record the Zoom™ Oral Argument in my Second Amendment cases was denied, stating: "the court will not permit the recording of oral argument."

Curious behavior for the guardians of our Freedoms. Do they have something to hide?

So the only chance to hear the Oral Arguments which will address the conflicts between the fundamental right to self defense and to keep & bear "arms" and New York's improper curtailing of those rights is by sending an email request to watch this Oral Argument to the Clerk at: ad4-calendar-clerk@nycourts.gov requesting the credentials to watch this Oral Argument.

DATE
DOCKET
TIME
Wed Mar 03
10:00 a.m.
OP 20-00556
Sibley v Steuben County Licencing Officer Chauncey Watches
10:00 a.m
Wed Mar 03
10:00 a.m.
OP 20-00776
Sibley v Steuben County FOIL Lawsuit
10:00 a.m

Black History Month, Dred Scott & Me

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:26:00 +0000

Montgomery Blair

Dred Scott

I thought it appropriate at the half-way mark of "Black History Month" to add my two bits of Black History which necessarily includes "White History"; as if the two really can be separated.

On July 4, 1854, Dred Scott publishes a pamphlet, concluding: "I have no money to pay anybody at Washington to speak for me. My fellow-men, can any of you help me in my day of trial? Will nobody speak for me at Washington, even without hope of other reward than the blessings of a poor black man and his family? I do not know. I can only pray that some good heart will be moved by pity to do that for me which I cannot do for myself; and that if the right is on my side, it may be so declared by the high court to which I have appeal.”

By December 30, 1854, when the Supreme Court docketed Dred Scott v. Sandford, no attorney had stepped forward. Yet, Montgomery Blair agreed to take up a case so unpopular that no one in D.C. was willing to take it and risked his career. Why?

Montgomery Blair stated in a letter on December 24, 1856, “I believe in the Southern Sates, almost every lawyer feels bound to give his services when asked in such a case arising in the community to which he belongs.”

In 2007, I gave a 25-minute lecture on Montgomery Blair and the Dred Scott case and how it impacted Montgomery Blair personally.

While I won't here sketch out the history and impact of the Dred Scott case as that is a book length chore, the March 6, 1857 decision by Chief Justice Taney held that the federal Constitution created a "perpetual and impassible barrier" between whites and blacks. This barrier defined blacks as a "subordinate and inferior class of being," with no natural rights.

We have come a long way, though obviously not far enough.

The future Attorney General and Me

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Mon, 25 Jan 2021 14:34:00 +0000

Update February 1, 2020: I have given a 40 minute interview on the letter I sent to the judiciary which can be viewed on YouTube.

I would be remiss in my duties as a Citizen to raise the "hue and cry" about President Biden's nominee for the Office of Attorney General if I were to remain silent. As such, I have this day mailed to the Senate Judiciary Committee a letter detailing my concerns about Judge Garland. In that letter, I describe Judge Garland's use of his discretion to hide the misfeasance of a fellow judge which makes him unsuitable, in my mind, to be Attorney General - an office of unlimted discretion. The letter has three parts:

Elizabeth Anna Duke: The Fugitive, Capitol Bombing, Domestic-Terrorist

The time-line and location of the U.S. v. Elizabeth Anna Duke events are as follows:

November 7, 1983 – A bomb was detonated inside the United States Capitol.

May 24, 1985 – Elizabeth Anna Duke (“Duke”) was arrested and arraigned for that Capitol bombing. She jumps bail and is a fugitive wanted by the FBI. Duke was connected with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1970s anti-war movement and the organizers of “Progressives for Obama.” In 1995, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a gathering in their home for Obama and raised funds for and promoted his candidacy.

Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson Dismisses the Indictment of Elizabeth Anna Duke

Twenty-five (25) years later, on June 17, 2009, Attorney M. Jeffery Beatrice, from Obama's Department of Justice, appears before Magistrate Judge Robinson for a hearing in the matter of U.S. v. Duke. At that hearing, Beatrice makes an oral motion to dismiss the Indictment of and quash the outstanding fugitive arrest warrant for Duke. On the record before her, Magistrate Judge Robinson grants this extraordinary oral motion and in her Order dismissing the Indictment signs it as an Article III “United States District Court Judge” ‒ a position the Article I Magistrate Judge Robinson does not hold. Too, in that Order, Magistrate Judge Robinson stated that the dismissal was: “for the reasons set forth in the government’s motion and for good cause shown” – a clear misrepresentation of what actually transpired at the hearing as no such “reasons” or “good cause” was mentioned as the Transcript clearly reveals.

Chief Judge Merrick Brian Garland Buries The Misfeasance Of Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson

Merrick Brian Garland is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has served on that court since 1997. President Joe Biden has nominated Garland for the position of United States Attorney General.

January 15, 2014 – Chief Judge Garland enters his order dismissing my Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Magistrate Judge Robinson stating for his reasons that: “Because the allegations lack[] sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred on the part of the magistrate” the complaint against Magistrate Judge Robinson “must be dismissed.” This is absurd.

Falsifying a federal record is a felony. By entering her Order stating that “good cause was shown” when no such cause was shown, Magistrate Judge Robinson falsified the record. Moreover, by dismissing the Duke indictment, the Article I Magistrate Judge Robinson knowingly exceeded her Congressionally-granted jurisdiction. Last, Magistrate Judge Robinson is an Article I judge, not an Article III judge. Hence, by signing the order of June 17, 2009, as the latter and not the former, she violated 18 U.S. Code § 912 - “Officer or employee of the United States”, another felony.

Our Country has been here before. In Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115, 124-125 (1956), the Supreme Court stated: “The untainted administration of justice is certainly one of the most cherished aspects of our institutions. Its observance is one of our proudest boasts. . . . Therefore, fastidious regard for the honor of the administration of justice requires the Court to make certain that the doing of justice be made so manifest that only irrational or perverse claims of its disregard can be asserted.” (Emphasis added). The "claims of disregard" by Judge Garland of the "administration of justice" that I raised above fall well below the standard set in Communist Party of "irrational or perverse claims". That is to say my two claims of felonious behavior by Magistrate Judge Robinson are not "irrational or perverse"; indeed, supported by irrefutable documentary evidence, I believe they are due to be heard by a grand jury.

So by my letter to the Senate Judicial Committee I have beseeched those permitted to ask question of Judge Garland to inquire of him about the Elizabeth Duke/Magistrate Robinson matter described above and if that is his idea of "honor[ing the] administration of justice"?

I Really Didn’t Want To File Suit To Remove A Federal Judge From Office . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 20 Nov 2020 14:25:00 +0000

The Honorable Frank Geraci, Jr.

As I have documented in prior posts, I have been challenging New York’s Handgun licensing scheme in both State and Federal Courts for the last eight hundred and fifty six (856) days. That effort continues at the speed of treacle: New York has been directed to file its Answer Briefs in the State cases in early January 2021. The Federal case is still in the motion to dismiss phase which will linger on into 2021 as well.

What I have not made public is that I found myself faced with a choice back in May of this year whether to sue the federal judge handling my federal Second Amendment case ‒ the Honorable Frank Geraci ‒ to remove him for “misbehaviour” in office. Family and friends will tell you I never shied away from filing a lawsuit when I believe the cause was just, so you can imagine my choice. What was the “misbehaviour” of a federal judge which might authorize removal from office? That is a complicated question requiring context of a completely un-illuminated clause in the Federal Constitution. So let me start there:

It was the common law of the United States that existed before the federal Constitution was ratified in June 1788 – and subsequently and expressly reserved to the People by the Ninth Amendment in 1791 – that there were three grounds for forfeiture of a judicial office: (i) abuse of office, (ii) non-use of office, and (iii) refusal to exercise an office.

The U.S. Constitution at Article III, §1 states in pertinent part: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour . . .”. Ergo, an inferior District Court Judge ‒ such as the Honorable Frank Geraci ‒ may be removed from office for the antithesis of “good behavior”, i.e., “misbehavior”.

Importantly, the Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” I maintained in my Complaint against the Honorable Frank Geraci that among those rights “retained by the people” was the right in a judicial proceeding to remove judicial actors for “misbehaviour”.

Clearly, the Constitution delegates to the Legislative Branch only the right to remove “civil officers” – which necessarily includes District Court Judges – in only very limited circumstances. Article I, §2 states: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Article I, §4 states: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Ergo, Congress can only remove a civil officer ‒ such as the Honorable Frank Geraci ‒ upon an impeachment and conviction in only three instances: (i) "treason", (ii) "bribery", or (iii) other "high crimes and misdemeanors". A priori, Congress cannot remove a civil officer for “misbehavior” that does not rise to the level of: ((i) "treason", (ii) "bribery", or (iii) other "high crimes and misdemeanors" as such power was never granted – and indeed was expressly prohibited – to Congress.

A fortiori, there must exist a range of judicial behavior which is not: (i) “treason”, (ii) “bribery”, or (iii) other “high crime and misdemeanor” but that does constitution “misbehavior” sufficient to breach the “good behavior” requirement of Article III, §1 for holding judicial office.

Let me put this proposition graphically:

Against that brief legal backdrop, on to the particular facts of Sibley v. Geraci, et al.:

On July 9, 2019, I filed my Second Amendment lawsuit challenging New York’s Handgun licencing scheme in federal court in Rochester, New York. At the same time, I also filed a Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis asked the Court to waive the $400 filing fee which is required to file a federal lawsuit. The Honorable Frank Geraci was assigned the case.

After waiting for seventy-nine (79) days, on September 26, 2019, as it was apparent to me that the Honorable Frank Geraci was not going to rule upon my Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis, I, as my work had picked up, was able to tender the filing fee of $400.00 which finally allowed the case to move forward.

The U.S. Supreme Court has left no doubt that access to court is a fundamental right and is also guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution in five different areas: (i) The Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, (ii) The First Amendment Petition Clause, (iii) The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, (iv) The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, (v) The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

In my lawsuit against the Honorable Frank Geraci, I maintained that his refusal to rule upon my Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis for seventy-nine (79) days denied to me my absolute right to access court for redress of my grievances and to seek protection of my fundamental, constitutional and statutory rights.

What, you may ask, is wrong with ignoring my Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis for seventy-nine (79) days? The problem is this: To those with money, the Honorable Frank Geraci granted immediate access to his Court but made impoverished litigants stand outside the Courthouse waiting his grace to enter thus denying equal protection of the laws between rich and poor. Such denial by the Honorable Frank Geraci I maintained was evidence of abuse, non-use and/or refusal to exercise his office warranting a finding of “misbehavior” in that office by the Honorable Frank Geraci. As such, I requested a judgment rendered after ‒ and only upon a jury verdict ‒ directing the forfeiture of the Honorable Frank Geraci’s office as a United States District Court Judge.

Now as you might imagine, when I filed this suit against the Honorable Frank Geraci on May 13, 2020, in federal court in Rochester, N.Y., the result was preordained. Without allowing me to be heard, the Honorable Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, immediately dismissed the suit and deemed it frivolous. How dare I raise a “first impression” Constitutional issue which created an existential threat to the Article III hegemony of federal judges?

Needless to say, I don’t take “no” for an answer lightly and so this matter now pends at the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City. My Initial Brief details all this in greater detail.

More to follow when the Second Circuit makes its decision.

Delaware Refuses to Release Criminal Records Related to Joe Biden

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 09 Sep 2020 11:50:00 +0000

I have been trying since late last year to get the Delaware Office of the Prothonotary to release public records related to a criminal case which may well bear upon the fitness of Joe Biden to be President. However, if you are looking for a 280-characters explanation of the importance of the Prothonotary’s refusal to produce the requested documents, you won’t find it here as this is a complicated story. Let’s go to the timeline:

In the Fall of 2007, my client Larry Sinclair accused then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama of engaging with him in drug use and homosexual acts. Shortly after that accusation, Larry began to exchange Text Messages regarding Obama with Donald Young, who was the Choir Director at The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Junior's Trinity United Church of Christ. This is the Church where then-Presidential hopeful Barack Obama was baptized, married and was a long-time member. On December 23, 2007, Donald Young was found executed in his Chicago apartment.

In Mid-January 2008, Larry posted a video on YouTube regarding his specific allegations of sex and drug use with Obama.

On February 8, 2008, the Attorney General of Delaware (and the late son of Joe Biden), Beau Biden, filed an Indictment against Larry charging theft of less than $1,000 and, anomalously, for an extradition warrant.

In Early-March 2008, Larry contacted me as he was afraid for his life as a result of the Donald Young “assassination” and for advice on what to do as he was receiving death threats. To protect Larry, we: (i) filed a federal lawsuit against the anonymous blogger "Oswaldo" threatening Larry and (ii) organized a rather bizarre press conference on June 18, 2008, at the National Press Club which is still on YouTube. The goals were to push back against those threatening Larry and also make a buffoon out of him so he would be relegated to a dustbin of history and no longer a threat to the Obama/Biden ticket. The strategy worked. The FBI identified the person making threats against Larry and me but refused to identify either him or the U.S. Attorney who told the the FBI not to tell us his identity.

Immediately after the June 18, 2008 Press Conference and while still at the National Press Club, Larry was arrested on the Delaware warrant and subsequently extradited to Delaware on June 23, 2008. According to the Docket, on August 28, 2008, Beau Biden filed a “nolle prosequi” or dismissal of the criminal case against Larry citing to the Court: “Insufficient Evidence”.

In December 2019, I ordered the actual file of Larry's Delaware Criminal case and paid to have it retrieved from the Delaware Clerk's storage. The Prothonotary of Delaware has refused to produce the file for my review despite my repeated requests. I believe that file will demonstrate that there was no evidence in support of the Delaware Warrant but rather it was a way for the Bidens to shut Larry up until after the election. It worked.

The circumstances surrounding Larry’s indictment, arrest and the subsequent dismissal of the criminal charges against him for lack of evidence six months later by Beau Biden's office speak clearly to me of the heavy hand of Joe Biden utilizing the criminal justice system to silence an existential threat to Obama and by extension, to Joe Biden himself.

I don't know if Larry was telling the truth or not, nor do I particularly care if Barack Obama is gay and/or an addict; that is not the issue here. I do know and care that Joe Biden apparently had my client falsely arrested for making those accusations. Like so many in Washington D.C., Joe Biden has come to believe that if his has the "power" then whatever he does with it is "right". This is antithetical to our Nation's Founder's beliefs and significant sacrifices to achieve dominance for the rule-of-law that “what is right” flows from objective and agreed-upon sources of right and wrong, not from the possession of power alone.

For this reason, I do not believe Joe Biden is fit to be President of the United States of America because apparently to him the ends justify whatever means are used to obtain them. While I will admit to certain reservations about Donald Trump, in weighing the risks each man poses to the well-being of the United States of America, there is no question in my mind that Joe Biden is simply too morally untenanted to be a four-year tenant in the most powerful Chair in the World.

If you want to follow up: Delaware Office of the Prothonotary, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, Superior Court of Delaware, Suite 500, 500 N. King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801| Email: Michele.Ashby@Delaware.gov | Phone: (302) 255-0775

A Response to Reginald Oh’s Newsweek Article: Born in the U.S.A.: Kamala Harris Is Eligible to Become Vice President

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 12:22:00 +0000

The political-driven and intellectually-vacant Newsweek Article by Reginald Oh demands a retort. Given my extensive litigation experience in this area, I am compelled by my civic duty to give that reply. In sum, Mr. Oh conclude that:

Is Kamala Harris ineligible to become vice president because she is not a natural born United States citizen? Can that possibly be true? The answer is no. An examination of the relevant constitutional provision and Supreme Court precedent tells us that Harris is indeed a natural born U.S. citizen and fully eligible to become vice president.

This of course begs the more important question: Can Senator Harris become President if , assuming he is elected, Mr. Biden cannot fulfill his term? As I will demonstrate below, the substantial legal precedent holds the opposite. What Mr. Oh sought to achieve in his Newsweek article, legitimizing an illegitimate candidate for Vice President who could potentially become President, has no basis in the Law of the United States.

First, the facts: Mr. Oh states, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, that: "[Kamala Harris’] immigrant parents were not permanent resident aliens when she was born [in California]. Her parents were students, presumably in the U.S. on student visas at the time.”

Second, the law: The Constitutional provision at issue: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Plainly, Ms. Harris is a “citizen” of the United States and entitled to all the privileges and immunities that status entitles her. However, the Constitution adds an additional requirement for those who would seek to be President. They must be a “natural born Citizen.” Tellingly, Mr. Oh fails to mention this requirement in his attempt to ignore the law of this land.

This brings into focus the seminal question: Who is a “natural born Citizen”? As detailed below, any cogent analysis of this legal-term-of-art can only arrive at one conclusion: Senator Harris, while certainly qualified to be Vice-President, could not succeed to the Office of President as she is not qualified to be President of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

In the 18th Century when the Constitution was ratified by the States, the term “natural born Citizen” had a definite meaning well known to those schooled in the law. “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (Emphasis added). Senator Harris’ parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth.

Importantly John Jay's July 25, 1787 letter to George Washington concluded that the Constitution should: “declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” Subsequent to John Jay's July 25, 1787, letter, on August 22, 1787, it was proposed at the Constitutional Convention that the presidential qualifications were to be a “citizen of the United States.” Upon objection to such a broad definition, the language was referred back to a Committee, and the Article II, Section 1 qualification clause was changed to read “natural born Citizen,” and was so reported out of Committee on September 4, 1787, and thereafter adopted in the Constitution. Plainly, the drafters of the Constitution wanted the more limited scope of citizens who were “natural born Citizens” to be eligible to be President.

Moreover, turning to the enactments of the First Congress for guidance, it is plain that “citizen” cannot be conflated to equate with “natural born Citizen”. The Naturalization Act of 1790 which held: “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .” (Emphasis added). Of dispositive significance is the 1790 Act's employing of the plural noun “citizens” in defining who shall be “natural born citizens.” and the singular noun as to whom are only to gain “citizenship”.

Therefore, either Mr. Oh is a sloppy legally researcher or more likely his vapid Newsweek article was presented as purposeful political dissimulation.

All this brings me to the most glaring omission in Mr. Oh’s Newsweek polemic: His failure to cite the relevant Supreme Court case on the term “natural born Citizen”. The only Supreme Court decision which has directly construed the “natural-born citizen” clause from Article 2, §1, is Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874). In that case, the Supreme Court held: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Minor v. Happersett at 168 (Emphasis added). Again, the plural noun “parents” is dispositive of the issue of who is a “natural born Citizen”.

Chief Justice John Marshall said, in delivering the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Notably, the phrase “natural born Citizen” appears just once in the Constitution and the phrase “citizen” appears twenty-one (21) times. Plainly, something more than just “citizenship” is required in order to be President.

Thus, I must maintain that the shoddy citations by Mr. OH to imply that Senator Harris is eligible to be President cannot stand. The reference to de Vattel, The Naturalization Act of 1790 and the holding in Minor v. Happersett are all consistent: “natural born Citizen” is a privilege bestowed upon a special class of U.S. Citizen, to wit, a child born of two U.S. Citizen parents. Stated another way, Senator Harris is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus is ineligible to be President as her respective parents were not U.S. Citizens at the time of her birth. Hence her presumed nomination by the Democratic Party to be Vice President is either ill-informed or a clever ruse to make the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, the next in line if Mr. Biden is elected and fails to fulfill his term in office. Take your choice.

What is really at issue is the very fundamental question of whether We the People are to be governed by the rule of law as embodied in our organic document or instead, the whim and caprice of the ruling class which seeks to pervert the law to their desired ends. I hold the former is the most important question of this election cycle and I will continue to raise the hue and cry as best I can.

Institutional Racism & Me

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Mon, 03 Aug 2020 21:24:00 +0000

I thought I ought to add my voice to the cacophony being raised about systemic racism by providing documentation of it from my days as a criminal prosecutor in Rochester, New York.

In the summer of 1987, a chance comment after church by the mother of my first girlfriend Sarah Zartman changed my life. Mrs. Zartman at the time was the chairwoman of the Republican Party for Rochester and had a problem. There was no one who wanted to run in the fall 1987 election against the Democratic incumbent District Attorney Howard Relin – my soon-to-be ex-boss as I was leaving the office after five years working there as an Assistant District Attorney.

Though, I knew there was little chance of success, Ms. Zartman thought the election would be an excellent opportunity to introduce me to the electorate as a nice guy, homegrown candidate and would pave the way for the following year’s election to the State Senate, where a seat was to be vacated and up for grabs. The last thing anyone wanted was for me to leave a bad taste in the voters' mouths as first impressions are everlasting.

However, that was not to be. My former boss and opponent in the race for District Attorney was Howard Relin. Mr. Relin had authored a “Selection of the Jury” memorandum for his 40 Assistant District Attorneys directing them to remove “women and minorities” from the jury whenever the defendant was of African descent. This appalling 1981-1986 policy of Mr. Relin’s office was not only morally repugnant, it had been unconstitutional since 1965 when the Supreme Court held in Swain v. Alabama, that: a “State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause.”

After I publicly raised this issue in the campaign and released the Jury Selection Memo as proof, no present or former Assistant District Attorneys would collaborate the existence of Relin’s Jury Selection Memo. I was socially and professionally blackballed (not for the last time) for using unfair campaign tactics. I lost the election by the largest margin in the history of Rochester, New York, elections.

However, three days after the election, the highest court in New York, in the case of People v. Knight, reversed a murder conviction obtained by Howard Relin’s office stating: “We find that defendant articulated facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the [Assistant District Attorney] exercised his peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner, thereby shifting the burden to the prosecutor to provide neutral explanations for his peremptory challenges.” Subsequently, Relin’s Jury selection memo was introduced and its authenticity confirmed resulting in a new trial for Mr. Knight.

I was, as usual, vindicated ex post facto which is fine with me. 1 Corinthians 4:3.

Not a Supreme Court, but a Supreme Legislature

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:08:00 +0000

I think Edmund Burke only got it half right when he said: "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." I would add: "and they will have no idea of why what is happening is happening." Case in point as Reuters recently reported: "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights . . ." Thus the Supreme Court is no longer a Court, but instead a Super-Legislature made up of nine (9) unelected, tenured for life, justices. The Framers of our Constitution would be appalled that the Court had become a second, superior legislature. So, dear reader, come with me on a brief history lesson to understand how this fundamental change in the separation of powers came about that brought us to where we are today.

Since he first entered public life, William Howard Taft – the 27th President of the United States (1909–1913) – really wanted to be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.¹ In 1921, courtesy of President Harding, Taft received that appointment.

As early as 1908, Taft was seeking a new and limited role for the Court he would ultimate guide into its present-day incarnation: a Supreme Court with: “jurisdictional limitations, either in amount in controversy or in the subject matter of suits,” or by “discretionary writ of certiorari.”² Taft was in the minority calling for these radical changes in a court that was essentially the one envisioned by the founding fathers – a pedigree that few in Congress were willing to tamper with. “Congress was reluctant to reform many aspects of the federal judicial system because it viewed the Judiciary Act of 1789 as the implementation of the Framers' vision of an independent and robust judiciary.”³

Indeed, in 1910, then Chief Justice Edward White, whom Taft had appointed in 1910, refused to seek congressional action to change the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court recognizing that such change would: “break down the separation of the political branches of government from the judiciary.”⁴ As soon as Taft opened his first term as Chief Justice in 1921, he formed a committee of three other Justices to draft legislation to radically change the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.⁵ In February of the following year, Taft enlisted the support of the American Bar Association by publishing articles in support of his Committee’s proposed legislation.

No previous legislative proposal had proposed to make the Supreme Court a purely discretionary court of appeal.⁶ To Congress he promised that petitions to invoke such discretion would be given “the most careful consideration,” and that only petitions that were “frivolous” or addressed to principles of law that were “well settled.” would be summarily denied⁷. In essence, Taft’s argument was similar to that of the scorpion in the fable of the scorpion and the frog: “Trust Me”.⁸

In testimony before Congress in support of what was now known as the “Judges’ Bill”, Taft rejected arguments that the bill gave the Supreme Court “too wide discretionary power” instead again promising that each petition received by the Supreme Court would be “carefully determined by each member of the Court” and “discussed and voted on.”⁹ Otto von Bismarck’s maxim that: “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made”, was never proven more true than by what happened next. “Almost without discussion”, on February 2, 1925, the House passed the bill.¹⁰ The Senate passed the bill with only one vote in opposition and President Coolidge signed it into law on February 13, 1925.¹¹

William Howard Taft now had the prime seat on and the "discretionary jurisdiction" Supreme Court he had been seeking for twenty years. The results would be a profound change from the judiciary envisioned by the Founding Fathers. In Article III, those Founding Fathers had spelled-out the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: “the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” But was “discretionary jurisdiction” and “exception” or a “regulation” that Congress was empowered to make? In the Judiciary Act of 1925, Congress changed “shall” to “may”: “A final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a State . . .may be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon a writ of error.”¹² A similar section was made applicable to appeals from the federal district and circuit courts.

Chief Justice Marshall would be mortified for his vision – and that of the Founding Fathers – of the Supreme Court deemed it “treason”¹³ to fail to decide a case within the Court’s jurisdiction. No one would challenge the Constitutionality of this radical change from a court of mandatory jurisdiction to a court of discretionary jurisdiction – and hence a de facto super-legislature without electoral control – for over seventy five years.

But the story of that challenge, by me, must wait for another day.

1 Henry F. Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft, (2d ed. 1964), note 73, at 102.^↩
2 Edward A. Hartnett, Questioning Certiorari: Some Reflections Seventy-Five Years After the Judges’ Bill, 100 Columbia Law Review. 1643, 1644 (Nov. 2000), note 12, at 1661 n.74.^↩
3 Charles G. Geyh, Judicial Independence, Judicial Accountability, and the Role of Constitutional Norms in Congressional Regulation of the Courts, 78 Indiana Law Journal 153, 171 (2003).^↩
4 David H. Burton, Taft, Holmes, and the 1920s Court: An Appraisal (1998), note 92, at 117.^↩
5 Hartnett, supra, at 1663.^↩
6 Hartnett, supra, note 12, at 1666.^↩
7 William Howard Taft, Three Needed Steps of Progress, 8 American Bar Association Journal 36 (Jan. 1922).^↩
8 A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, “How do I know you won't sting me?” The scorpion says, “ Trust me, because if I do sting you, I will die too.” The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp “Why?” Replies the scorpion: “Its my nature...” ^↩
9 William Howard Taft, Possible and Needed Reforms in the Administration of Justice in Federal Courts, 8 American Bar Association Journal 601, 603 (Sept. 1922).^↩
10 Hartnett, supra, at 1695.^↩
11 Hartnett, supra, at 1704.^↩
12 43 Stat. 936, Chapter 229, §237.^↩
13 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)^↩

A Tale Of Two Indictment Dismissals: Trump’s DOJ’s Flynn Case vs. Obama’s DOJ’s Duke Case

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Mon, 11 May 2020 14:09:00 +0000

I could not help but gag on my breakfast on May 9th when reading the Business Insider article entitled “There is no precedent that anybody can find': Obama reportedly excoriated the DOJ's decision to drop the Michael Flynn case in a private call.” Apparently, Mr. Obama has forgotten his DOJ’s dismissal without explanation of the U.S. Capitol-Bombing, Domestic Terrorist, Elizabeth Anna Duke. Let’s compare cases and see if you don’t gag too on the hypocrisy.

In United States Of America v. Michael T. Flynn, the U.S. Government filed a twenty (20) page Motion To Dismiss the Criminal Information against Michael T. Flynn. That motion detailed: (i) the factual predicate for such a motion and (ii) the legal status of the government and court in addressing that motion. While the entire Motion deserves reading by any fair-minded Citizen before they form any opinion regarding that Motion, the sum and substance was that:

“[T]he Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn ‒ a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words, prepared to close because it had yielded an “absence of any derogatory information.” . . The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue.

That Motion now pends before the Honorable Judge Sullivan. Stop eating before continuing reading:

Lost to the memory of most, Elizabeth Anna Duke was indicted on May 11, 1988, along with six other individuals, for acts of violence against the United States, including the bombing of the United States Capitol on November 7, 1983. After her arrest in 1985, Elizabeth Duke was released on $300,000 bail over the strenuous objections of the United States Attorney. She subsequently failed to re-appear as ordered and a fugitive bench warrant was issued for her arrest. To date, Elizabeth Duke has not been captured pursuant to that warrant of arrest and she is still listed on the F.B.I. 's Most Wanted list.

Fast forward twenty-five years to June 17, 2009. Shortly after Mr. Obama was sworn in as President, a putative Assistant United States Attorney made an oral motion to dismiss the Indictment and quash the arrest warrant for the fugitive, domestic terrorist, United-States-Capitol-bombing Elizabeth Anna Duke which was granted by Magistrate-Judge Deborah A. Robinson.

Neither the Oral Motion nor the Order dismissing the Indictment gave any reason for this extraordinary action of dismissing an indictment against a dangerous felony fugitive. When I finally forced Magistrate-Judge Robinson to release the transcript, I discovered that neither the law nor the facts granted to Magistrate-Judge Robinson the authority to dismiss the indictment against Elizabeth Anna Duke. The tale from that point forward gets very sordid and calls into question Mr. Obama’s involvement with the radical, Weather Underground movement of the 70s and 80s. A full recitation of my investigations and the appalling indictment of Mr. Obama’s abuse of the legal system can be found at my web-page on Elizabeth Anna Duke.

So Mr. Obama, No: a legally-justified (if not compelled) Motion to Dismiss in the Flynn case is not as you claim “the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic ‒ not just institutional norms ‒ but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.” Simply stated, the record in the Flynn case is available for all to see and judge. That is what the rule of law requires: transparency of government action.

Rather, when you send an attorney who appears not to be a DOJ employee to dismiss an indictment against a fugitive without explanation before an Article I magistrate-judge who: (i) does not have jurisdiction to dismiss an indictment, (ii) misrepresented herself on the dismissal order as an Article III judge, (iii) patently lies on her dismissal order and (iv) coincidentally sees her son get preferential federal treatment for his felony arrest for drugs and weapon charges, then, Mr. Obama, I have a real concern that on your watch the “rule of law [was] at risk.” Serious risk.

Care to respond?

The 2nd Amendment, Stephen Decatur & Me

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:00:00 +0000

Stephen Decatur

I didn't really want this fight. When I moved to New York in 2016, I simply wanted to have my pistols for protection and work (I am licenced as a Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator and am legally obligation to "take", i.e. "kill", animals suspected of rabies for testing.)

But then I ran into New York's Pistol Licensing scheme and found it wanting in due process, equal protection and respect for the Second Amendment. I wished I could just look away, but . . . I couldn't. So as few can afford to challenge New York and I do know how, it was off to the races.

Now, after waiting six hundred (600) days for a decision on my Application for a pistol license, I received that decision on March 9, 2020. In that Decision, Licensing Officer (and County Court Judge) Watches rested his sole reason for denying my Application that: “[Sibley] has failed to demonstrate good moral character.” Notably, Licensing Officer Watches did not find that I had failed to demonstrate “good cause” for such a license.

Fortunately, it is not 1820 and I don't have to challenge Licencing Officer Watches to a duel ala Stephen Decatur to defend my Honor and Family Name as Decatur did 200 years ago almost to the day. Instead, there is a Court system to address this slur and I look forward to vigorously pursing vindication.

To that end, I have recently filed a pleading which briefly (well, as briefly as a lawyer can) and indisputably demonstrates structural and systemic failures in New York’s pistol licensing procedures and seeks relief not only for me but system-wide reforms. I have also asked the Court to "fish or cut bait" as my Fundamental right to self-defense in my home is at issue.

The noted jurist and High Priest of U.S. Jurisprudence, William Blackstone said it best in 1769: “[Self-defense is] justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society.” 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries 139. Yet, this is what New York has done to me . . . and 13 million other law-abiding New York Citizens.

Particularly now when the foundations of our civil society are being shaken, this need for self-defense is more pressing than anytime in our Country's history.

Trump should Pardon Pelosi Now

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Thu, 06 Feb 2020 22:56:00 +0000

At the beginning of the 2020 SOTU address, President Trump handed to Vice President Pence as the President of the Senate and to Speaker of the House Pelosi his “State of the Union” address. He was required to do so by Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution which states: The President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

When Nancy Pelosi ripped up that document, she committed a federal felony. Eighteen USC §2071(a) – “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Likewise, 18 USC §2071(b) – “Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Justice requires accountability for actions by public officers without color of law. If she is not prosecuted by the Department of Justice, then a hue and cry should rise up for she has laid: “Too rude a hand on English ways” thus requiring a “warning down from Runnymede!”

However, I suggest the best outcome is a pardon from President Trump as a gesture of good will towards her which she will be bound to reciprocate thus producing a more cordial atmosphere in our Nation’s Capital. Or not. But at least President Trump will be the better “person” for the gesture.

Oh, and here is my favorite picture from last the SOTU address:

Over due update on Second Amendment Litigation

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:25:00 +0000

I litigate like the Finnish approach the battlefield using the concept of Motitus -- a double envelopment manoeuvre, using the ability of light troops to travel over rough ground to encircle enemy troops on a road. Heavily outnumbered but mobile forces could easily immobilize an enemy many times more numerous.

The main thrust of my Second Amendment litigation is the argument raised in my Administrative Application for a Carry Concealed licence proceeding that:

New York’s procedure for adjudicating applications to possess a handgun outside of the home violates federal procedural due process;

N.Y. Penal Law, §400.00.1 is void-for-vagueness, facially overbroad, violates the Equal Protection and Privileges and Immunities guarantees and encourages and permits, as in my case, prohibited arbitrary and discriminatory licensing.

On January 10, 2020, a hearing was held on those legal issues and my factual basis for requesting a license to carry handguns outside the home for purposes of: (i) self-defense and/or (ii) as part of my job-related duties as a New York licensed Nuisance Wildlife Control Operation to humanely “take”, i.e. kill, certain wild animals in certain situations for public health and/or safety reasons. A decision from the Licencing Officer is pending.

However, employing the concept of Motitus, I have two other lawsuits pending in a bid to "encircle enemy troops" (the State of New York) all towards the end of crystallizing that which New York has intentionally kept legally indeterminate: What is the required process due the termination or limitation on the fundamental right to self-defense inside and outside the home?

Of course, this arbitrariness of legal process has a historical precedent:

The qualitative shift in the legal treatment of the Jews can also be described in terms of the decreasing basis for an expectation on the part of the Jewish subject that he or she would be subject to predictable treatment by those in power. That is, the assumption by the SS of jurisdiction over many aspects of Jewish life lent an atmosphere of potential, if not actual, arbitrariness to the administration of these measures. . . . Indeed, the policy of extermination that shortly followed belonged to an extra-legal world of SS directives that remained, at all times, contingent on the whims of those who had the power to issue them.

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN EXTERMINATORY LEGALITY: LAW AND THE HOLOCAUST, 59 UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LAW JOURNAL DOI: 10.3138/utlj.59.1.65

In New York, the licencing procedure rests solely upon the "whims of those who" have the power to issue carry concealed pistol permits. Leaving aside the question (which I raise in these proceedings) whether New York has the authority to so limit carry concealed firearms, clearly that recognized right cannot be taken away so cavalierly.

Thus, I have filed a New York Freedom of Information Lawsuit (FOIL) to see who is and who is not getting carry concealed licences and why or why not. That litigation is set for a Motion to Re-argue on January 27, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Nasca in Bath, New York.

Second, I have also filed a federal lawsuit in Rochester, New York against His Excellency Andrew Mark Cuomo and others seeking a legal declaration by the Judge assigned, the Honorable Frank Geraci, that:

New York’s criminal ban on my handgun possession in my home and cane sword possession both in my home and in public on its face and as applied violates my (i) Fundamental rights and (ii) Second Amendment rights;

New York’s administrative handgun licensing procedure as codified in N.Y. Penal Law §400.00 et seq. and N.Y. Admin. P. Act, §100 et seq. violates my rights; and

The judicial review system of New York’s administrative handgun licensing procedure codified in N.Y. CPLR, Article 78 violates Federal and New York Due Process guarantees as failing to provide meaningful judicial review from an administrative process affecting Fundamental and Constitutional rights.

This suit is pending a response by the Defendants which should be filed later in January.

More, doubtlessly, will follow. However, fuller background regarding these litigations can be found in the below Press Releases:

Press Release #1: Sibley Challenges New York State’s Handgun Law and Licensing Procedures in Federal Court

Press Release #2: Sibley’s Second Amendment FOIL/Red Flag Lawsuit Set for Hearing September 9, 2019, at Bath, N.Y.

Press Release #3: Sibley’s Second Amendment/Red Flag FOIL Lawsuit set for Hearing Monday, October 21, 2019 in Bath, New York

Press Release #4: Judge Threatens to Hold Steuben County in Contempt at Sibley’s Second Amendment/Red Flag FOIL

Lawsuit Hearing

Press Release #5: Is Steuben County Going to be Held in Contempt at Sibley’s November 18, 2019 Second Amendment/Red Flag FOIL Lawsuit Hearing?

Press Release #6: Hearing on Sibley’s Pistol Permit Application set for Friday, January 10, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. *** Sibley Sues Governor Cuomo Challenging Criminalization of Handgun Possession in the Home *** Judge Ignores Sibley’s First Amendment Argument and Dismisses Sibley’s Red Flag/FOIL Lawsuit

***

Sibley’s Second Amendment FOIL/Red Flag Lawsuit Set for Hearing

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:46:00 +0000

In conjunction with my recently-filed Federal Lawsuit in which I challenged New York’s criminalization of handgun possession in the home in clear violation of the Second Amendment, I have filed a New York State Article 78 lawsuit under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) challenging New York’s procedure for granting pistol permits.

In my Article 78 Lawsuit, I sought a “complete copy of records or portions thereof pertaining to all Pistol /Revolver License applications and Pistol /Revolver License files for each person granted or denied a Pistol /Revolver License in Steuben County for the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.” In response, the Records Access Officer for Steuben County claimed that she was prohibited from releasing that information under New York Penal Law §400(5)(b).

Of course Steuben County must follow the law as written and deny my request. I understand, it is not for the administrative/executive branch to declare a statute unconstitutional which is what I am arguing. My point: Albany has created a secret, extrajudicial, Red Flag system to deny New Yorkers the right to possess handguns in their homes as secured by the Second Amendment. That system secrets pistol permit applications and determinations from public view. By hiding the “why” who is getting ‒ and who is not getting pistol permits ‒ Albany can and is treating persons seeking a pistol permit who are similarly situated differently. That allows for the arbitrary and discriminatory granting of pistol permits and thus violates Equal Protection guarantees.”

The Honorable Judge Robert B. Wiggins has issued an Order to Show Cause in which he set a hearing on my Article 78 Lawsuit for September 9, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. at the Steuben County Courthouse, 3 E. Pulteney Square, Bath, N.Y. 14810.

New York Handgun Laws vs. The Second Amendment

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:32:00 +0000

Young George Washington

Once again, I find myself called to file a lawsuit. This time regarding the scope of the Fundamental and Second Amendment rights of resistance and self-preservation in the Home vs. the State of New York's attempt to circumscribe those rights by banning ownership of handguns. I would rather not be so called as lawsuits are harder to get out of than marriages. But this one I can not walk away from and here is why:

Young George Washington's first military and diplomatic venture came in the Fall and Winter 1753 - 1754 through Western Pennsylvania. He was accompanied by my Fifth Great Grandfather, Christopher Gist (1706 - 1759)*. Martin J. O'Brien of the Harmony Museum, recounts the story:

At one point, Washington and his traveling companion, Christopher Gist, had a mishap on the Connoquenessing Creek. They tried to take this raft across the Allegheny River, and Washington was controlling it with a pole, and didn’t do a very good job because he ended up being thrown into the river. And with all the wet wool clothes that they used to wear, it was very fortunate that he was able to be saved by Gist.

Washington was the catalyst of the Revolution, he was the leader of the Constitutional Convention, he held everything together throughout the Revolution and afterwards, when we formed our government. And I truly believe, had Washington been killed, that our nation’s history would be quite different and the history of the world, the modern world as we know it, would be quite different.

The way I look at it, I have little choice other than to jump in and assert the fundamental rights of resistance and self-preservation in my home than my great, great, great, great, grandfather Christopher Gist did to jump in the Connoquenessing Creek and save young George Washington from drowning: Indeed, less choice.

The background on this is:

On July 18, 2018, I filed my State of New York Pistol/Revolver License Application (“Application”) with the Clerk of Steuben County. The Application was referred to Chauncey J. Watches, a New York Penal Law §265.00(10) Pistol/Revolver Licensing Officer for Steuben County, New York and, incidentally, a County Court Judge.

On May 29, 2019 ‒ three hundred fifteen (315) days or 10 ½ months after I filed my Application ‒ Chauncey J. Watches sent me a letter denying to me a Pistol/Revolver License stating in pertinent part: (i) That he had reviewed my application and “the investigation submitted by the Steuben County Sheriff’s Department”; (ii) "The basis for the denial results from concerns about your being sufficiently responsible to possess and care for a pistol”; (iii) “[T]he Court is concerned that your history demonstrates that you place your own interest above the interests of society”.

In response to my request for the factual basis of his decision, on June 25, 2019, Chauncey J. Watches wrote me stating that:“I have reviewed your requests for information and documents and find them to be without legal basis and therefore they are denied.”

My response: Sibley v. Watches, a federal lawsuit in the Western District of New York.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a handgun, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Importantly, the late Justice Scalia writing for the majority opinion stated:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Thus, faced with a denial-without-explanation by Chauncey J. Watches of my Application upon "secret" evidence against me, I have loosed three litigation dogs of war; the first being the above federal lawsuit. Subsequent posts on this blog will update the full nature and progress of my three litigation hell-hounds through the treacle-slow process of litigation.
============================================
* Nathaniel Gist (1733 - 1796) Son of Christopher Gist; Elizabeth Violet Gist (1794 - 1877) Daughter of Nathaniel Gist; Montgomery Blair (1813 - 1883); Son of Elizabeth Violet Gist; Montgomery Blair (1865 - 1944); Son of Montgomery Blair; Montgomery Blair (1898 - 1974); Son of Montgomery Blair; Beatrice Blair (1929 - 1994); Daughter of Montgomery Blair; Montgomery Blair Sibley (1956- ); Son of Beatrice Blair.

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Sun, 10 Mar 2019 19:18:00 +0000

Chapter Fourteen

November 15, 2017

To find a form that accommodates the mess,

That is the task of the artist now.

Samuel Beckett

The Committee of the Whole, sensing the need to finish before Christmas finally finished their debates, lobbying and wood-shedding and was ready to vote. And vote they did, by a solid majority sending all of the Proposed Amendments to Congress who had the responsibility to send those Proposed Amendments on to the States. Along with the transmittal of the Amendments, Congress was obligated to designate the method of ratification, either by the respective state legislatures or by state convention called for that purpose.

It was then with real relief that Blair took the podium for the last time. “Is there any further business? Hearing no response, I am then, with real pleasure, prepared to adjourn permanently this, the First Convention to Propose Amendments. But two final matters remain. I have asked Rabbi Joseph Black to give a closing prayer. Rabbi?”

Rabbi Joseph Black took the microphone and began: “Our God and God of All creation: God who inspires fear and God who comforts. God who can be found in the rubble of the quake and in the marches for justice in the streets. All around us we confront the debris of existence. We, who try to infuse order into the disarray of daily life, understand all too well that, at any moment, the calm we take for granted can be plunged into chaos without warning – whether by natural disaster or pent-up anger and frustration. In this sacred chamber, the tasks of governance seem both insignificant and indispensable at the same time. When we try to assess our actions in light of the challenges that face us, our attempts to create change can seem insignificant. And yet, our refusal to succumb to a cynicism bred from hubris is a defining characteristic of the divinity You have implanted within us all. As this Convention draws to a close, we look back at the months that have passed with mixed emotions. Thank you, God for the ability to shine a light on the goodness of humankind – even when we face adversity. Thank You for reasons to rise above the petty and the political to make a difference. Thank you for these leaders who share their passion for representing their communities. May the recess that awaits them bring rest, renewal and a re-ignited hope for all that is good. Amen.”

“Thank you Rabbi.” Blair said. “As was the tradition at the conclusion of the Convention of 1787, where, as George Washington noted in his diary, ‘the members adjourned to the City Tavern, dined together and took a cordial leave of each other’, I am pleased to announce that the government of the District of Columbia has prepared a dinner for us at City Hall, and I invite you to join Rachel and me there so that we may thereafter report that we dined together and took cordial leave of each other. That said, this Convention is adjourned, sine die.”

Blair dropped his gavel one last time.

***

“Blair”, Rachel said, “In all the months we have been here, did you ever take the walk up to the upper ramparts and see the Great Hall from there? It is quite a view.”

“No, I didn’t know you could get up there.”

“Well you can, if you know the secret passage way, which I do. Follow me.” Rachel led Blair to the second floor and to a door which opened to a staircase leading up. Taking the stairs up, Rachel led Blair to the ramparts from where, looking down, he could see the Great Hall below:

“Rachel, this is a great view. It is odd to see the Hall empty below, just the chairs and desks testifying to the debates held here over the last months.”

Rachel called from around the corner. “Come see the view from here”, she said.

As Blair rounded the corner he saw Rachel unbuttoning the buttons on her blouse.

“You always said, ‘Women need a reason, Men need a place.’ Well, now that our professional relationship is at an end, I have a reason and we have a fitting place, don’t you think?”

The End

Is Robert Mueller Now a Felon?

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:09:00 +0000

At the November 8, 2018, Oral Argument before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case of Andrew Miller v. United States of America, the Court announced that it was going to consider the implications of the resignation of Mr. Sessions as Attorney General the day before at a subsequent time. Thereafter, the Court entered its Order asking for Supplemental Briefs on that question to be filed by November 19, 2018.

I took up that request and have filed a Supplemental Letter as I didn't have time to comply with the difficult Circuit Court brief filing rules (number of copies, green cover, spiral binding, etc). We will see if the Court is going to elevate form over substance and hear what I have to say or, spending its time counting the number of Angels on the head of a pin, refuse my Letter.

However, the technical analysis contained in my Letter leads to an inescapable conclusion: Mr. Mueller no longer has authority to act as Special Counsel and if he continues to do so, he is impersonating a federal officer: a felony found at 18 U.S.C. §912.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Wants to Hear From Me?!

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 20:32:00 +0000

I was very surprised this week to learn that the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit accepted my request to file an Amicus Curiae brief in the case of Miller v. United States of America. Andrew Miller, who once worked as an aide to Trump ally Roger Stone, has been held in contempt of court for refusing to testify before a grand jury in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Miller attempted to quash his subpoena, but a judge ruled this month that he would have to testify. Oral arguments in the matter are scheduled for November 8, two days after the midterm elections.

What makes this curious is that it is unusual to allow amicus curiae briefs in a criminal matter. Yet, by an Order entered October 11, 2018, that is exactly what the Circuit Court did and now I have filed my Amicus Curiae brief. Here is what is more curious:

Jeannie S. Rhee of the Department of Justice -- who represented Hillary Clinton during the 2015 lawsuit regarding her private emails and the Clinton Foundation in a racketeering case -- agreed to my filing of the brief; and

The issue I raise -- that has not been raised on appeal by either the government or counsel for Andrew Miller -- is arguably dispositive: Regardless of whether Mr. Mueller initially had the authority for his investigation into Russian Collusion, by statute found at 5 U.S. Code §3346 Mr. Mueller's authority ended 210 days after he was appointed by Mr. Rosenstein. That date was December 17, 2017, and every action taken by him thereafter is void. See: 5 U.S.C. §3348(d)("any function or duty of a vacant office’ performed by a person not properly serving under the statute shall have no force or effect.”)

Will I be allowed to argue orally? What does all this mean?

You tell me.

I am not alone in arguing Robert Muller is operating extra-Constitutionally

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 21:43:00 +0000

In a recent post, I published a letter to President Trump arguing that Robert Muller is acting without Constitutional authority and hence all his actions are void. I am not alone in making this argument but am joined by respected legal authorities Steven Calabresi, one of the founders of the Federalist Society and a law professor at Northwestern and Douglas Kmiec, who teaches constitutional law at Pepperdine University:

What if Mueller appointment is 'totally unconstitutional'?

The National Labor Relations Board, CarMax and Me

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Sun, 19 Aug 2018 21:22:00 +0000

The NLRB has five Members and is presently controlled by a Republican majority. The NLRB primarily acts as a quasi-judicial body in deciding cases on the basis of formal records in administrative proceedings. Board Members are appointed by the President to 5-year terms.

Under the President Obama-controlled National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), a rule was promulgated in 2014 know as the Purple Communications rule. That rule said that Employees who have been given access to their Employer’s email system for work-related purposes have a presumptive right to use that system for Section 7–protected communications on nonworking time. Enacted in 1935, Section 7 refers to the National Labor Relations Act, §7 which guarantees Employees the right to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of . . . other mutual aid or protection".

It was under that Purple Communications rule that I, on May 1, 2016, when employed at CarMax, sent out seven thousand, five hundred (7,500) emails to CarMax Sales Associates spread out over 159 stores in 38 states. The email raised wage and working conditions concerns and produced a remarkable response to a Google Forms questionnaire. Of course, CarMax fired me five days later on May 6, 2016. My firing is a story for another day.

Why all this is relevant now is this: Under the President Trump-controlled NLRB, a case has arisen which the Republicans on the NLRB are using to repeal the Purple Communications rule. This would allow Employers to block use of company email systems for Employee communications regarding union or other protected concerted activity.

Graciously, the NLRB has requested Amicus briefs on whether to repeal the Purple Communications rule. As I, due to my unique experience at CarMax, have a singular perspective on the inestimable value of maintaining the Purple Communications rule, I have told my CarMax story in my Amicus brief. Through the Exhibits to the Brief are long, the Brief itself is short and makes for an illustrative story of the corrosive power of soulless corporations using Employee-controlling technology to maintain their unfair hegemony which renders the 1935 NLRA virtually meaningless today. Caveat Operarius!

Mr. President, Robert Mueller is operating without Constitutional Authority

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Thu, 05 Jul 2018 12:24:00 +0000

I recently wrote a letter to the President as I believe that Mr. Mueller is acting without Constitutional Authority and hence all his actions are void. The text of the letter follows:
_________________________________

July 3, 2018

President Donald Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Re: Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s Appointment of Robert Mueller Was Constitutionally Void Ab Initio

Dear Mr. President,

I write to assert that based upon the recent holding by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 21, 2018, in deciding the case of Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Docket No.: 17-130, there is no doubt that the appointment of Robert Mueller by Acting Attorney General Rosenstein was both Constitutionally and statutorily a void act. As a result, all actions taken by Mr. Mueller are void ab initio. Let me explain:

I. There Only Three Classes of Federal Agents

In Lucia, the Court addressed the question as to: “whether the [SEC]'s [Administrative Law Judges] are "Officers of the United States" or simply employees of the Federal Government. The Appointments Clause prescribes the exclusive means of appointing "Officers." Only the President, a court of law, or a head of department can do so. See Art. II, §2, cl. 2”. In particular, Article II, §2, cl. 2 states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Regarding the distinction between “all other Officers of the United States” and “such inferior Officers” that Congress may delegate the appointment to “the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments”, the Court in Lucia stated: “Only the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, can appoint a Principal officer; but Congress (instead of relying on that method) may authorize the President alone, a court, or a department head to appoint an Inferior officer. See ibid.”

II. Mr. Mueller is Not Simply [an] Employee of the Federal Government

Lucia next addresses the question of who is an “Officer” and who is a mere “employee of the Federal Government” holding:

Two decisions set out this Court's basic framework for distinguishing between officers and employees. United States v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508, 510 (1879) held that "civil surgeons" (doctors hired to perform various physical exams) were mere employees because their duties were "occasional or temporary" rather than "continuing and permanent." Id., at 511-512. Stressing "ideas of tenure [and] duration," the Court there made clear that an individual must occupy a "continuing" position established by law to qualify as an officer. Id., at 511. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976)(per curiam) then set out another requirement, central to this case. It determined that members of a federal commission were officers only after finding that they "exercis[ed] significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States." 424 U. S., at 126. The inquiry thus focused on the extent of power an individual wields in carrying out his assigned functions.

Here, Mr. Mueller fails both tests. First, his appointment is clearly not “occasional or temporary”; rather it is of indefinite duration. Second, and of greater import, Mr. Mueller is wielding the full power of a United States Attorney: issuing subpoenas, presenting matters to the Grand Jury and offering plea deals to criminal charges. Plainly, the “extent of power” that Mr. Mueller is exercising is the “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.” Truly, Congress has mandated by law at 28 U.S.C. Section 541(a) that same authority resides in U.S. Attorneys who are Principal Officers requiring Senate confirmation under Article II, Section 2, clause 2. As such, Mr. Mueller cannot be deemed a Federal Government “Employee”.

III. Mr. Mueller is Not a Principal Officer of the United States

In order for Mr. Mueller to be a “Principal Officer” of the United States, he would have had to be: (i) Appointed by the President and (ii) Approved by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Neither event occurred here as Mr. Mueller was appointed on May 17, 2017, solely upon the usurped authority of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. See: Rosenstein’s Appointment of Mueller Letter, attached hereto. As such, Mr. Mueller cannot claim legal authority as a “Principal Officer” of the United States.

IV. Mr. Mueller is Not an Inferior Officer of the United States

In order for Mr. Mueller to be an “Inferior Officer” of the United States, his appointment must be authorized by Congress. As Justice Thomas noted in Lucia, “While principal officers must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, Congress can authorize the appointment of "inferior Officers" by "the President alone," "the Courts of Law," or "the Heads of Departments." Art. II, §2, cl. 2.” Here, notably, Congress has not authorized the creation of the “inferior” office of “Special Counsel”. Congress has authorized both Assistant United States Attorneys and Special United States Attorneys, but at present there is no Congressional Authorization for a “Special Counsel”. As such, the putative appointment of Mr. Mueller as an “Inferior Officer” designated a “Special Counsel” is a Constitutional nullity.

V. In All Events, Mr. Mueller’s Appointment Expired on December 13, 2017

Assuming for purposes of argument, that Mr. Rosenstein could appoint Mr. Mueller as a “Special Counsel”, that appointment was expressly limited by statute. First, 5 U.S. Code §3345(a) - “Acting officer” states in pertinent part: “If an officer of an Executive agency . . . whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office - (1) the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346.” Here, as detailed in Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s letter of May 17, 2017, he had invoked 5 U.S. Code § 3345(a) when appointing Mr. Mueller as “Special Counsel”. As such, Mr. Rosenstein was expressly limited by 5 U.S. Code § 3346, “Time Limitation” which states:

Except in the case of a vacancy caused by sickness, the person serving as an acting officer as described under section 3345 may serve in the office- (1) for no longer than 210 days beginning on the date the vacancy occurs;

Again, assuming Attorney General Session was “otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office” due to his supposed conflict of interest, the authority of Mr. Rosenstein to act as an “Acting Attorney General” expired on December 17, 2017 – 210 days after he commenced exercising that authority. A priori, Mr. Mueller’s authority, whatever that may be, likewise expired on December 17, 2017, with Mr. Rosenstein’s statutory sunset of his ability to act as “Acting Attorney General”.

VI. Conclusion

In sum:

If Mr. Rosenstein is otherwise qualified to Act as the Attorney General under 5 U.S.C. Section 3345(a)(1), his term of office would expire 210 days from when he began Acting as the Attorney General, to wit, December 17, 2017;

The office Mr. Mueller purports to currently hold is not established by Congress as required by the Appointments Clause;

The power Mr. Mueller is exercising is equal to or greater than a United States Attorney;

United States Attorneys are principal officers requiring Senate confirmation under 28 U.S.C. Section 541;

Returning to Lucia, the Supreme Court has held that “one who makes a timely challenge to the constitutional validity of the appointment of an officer who adjudicates his case” is entitled to relief. Ryder v. United States, 515 U. S. 177, 182-183 (1995). . . . This Court has also held that the "appropriate" remedy for an adjudication tainted with an appointments violation is a new "hearing before a properly appointed" official. Id., at 183, 188 as all proceedings by a Constitutionally-invalid officer are void.

Therefore, Mr. Mueller is acting in violation of the Appointments Clause and his actions are thus void ab initio.

I am available to address any questions, comments or concerns you may have.

Yours,

/s/ Montgomery Blair Sibley

cc:

Attorney General Sessions
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Robert K. Kelner
Stephen Pierce Anthony
Counsel for Michael T. Flynn
Covington & Burling LLP
850 Tenth Street N.W.
One City Center
Washington, DC 20001
Email: rkelner@cov.com
Email: santhony@cov.com Kevin M. Downing
Counsel for Paul Manafort
Law Office of Kevin M. Downing
601 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Suite 620
Washington, DC 20001
Email: kevindowning@kdowninglaw.com

Richard William Westling
Counsel for Paul Manafort
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
1227 25th Street, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20037
Email: rwestling@ebglaw.com

Thomas Edward Zehnle
Counsel for Paul Manafort
Law Office of Thomas E. Zehnle
601 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Suite 620
Washington, DC 20001

Email: tezehnle@gmail.com

EVIDENCE OF CIA ROLE IN FORGING OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:11:00 +0000

Government computers illegally hacked Hawaii Dept. of Health

Regardless of what you think of Alex Jones, he recently posted an article that the main stream media will not touch regarding the CIA's involvement in the creation of Barack Obama's birth certificate.

Ignore the article and issue if you want, but as a U.S. Citizen I opine you have the obligation to know what the government is doing sure in the belief that we are all NetFlix-addicted morons.

The most appalling thing a judge can say . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 06 Oct 2017 11:52:00 +0000

During the recent oral arguments of a hotly debated case -- Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis -- Chief Justice John Roberts, in a back-and-forth with University of Virginia law professor Daniel Ortiz said the most appalling thing a judge can say: Let the desired results dictate the law.

In that case, Justice Roberts observed that a decision in favor of Ortiz’s client would invalidate employment agreements covering 25 million people – a step that several of the justices would be reluctant to take.

I find this appalling for Justice Roberts is not concerned with what the law requires, but rather with what effect enforcing the law will have. This is contrary to the very spirit of the Rule of Law which requires that the law dictate the results, not the desired results dictates the law.

Stated another way, if those 25 million employment agreements violate the law -- and a very considerable weight of the legal analysis points to that conclusion -- then those agreements violate the law and they must be invalidated. Justice Roberts is arguing that certain cases are "too big" to be determined by law but rather must be determined by the amount of inconvenience to the employer. Sickening from a jurist, particularly one who sits as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Fort Sumter to Charlottesville: A letter from two Montgomery Blairs to two Presidents

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:32:00 +0000

On Friday, April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, firing for 34 straight hours. On Saturday, April 13th, the Fort was surrendered by it commanding officer, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson, and evacuated. Confederate troops then occupied Fort Sumter for nearly four years, resisting several bombardments by Union forces before abandoning the garrison prior to William T. Sherman’s capture of Charleston in February 1865.

Most historians agree that the abandonment of Fort Sumter by Major Anderson would play a major part in triggering the Civil War. In the days following the abandonment of the Fort, more Southern states including Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee cast their lot with the Confederacy. When the Civil War finally ended, some 620,000 people had been killed in the Civil War.

Could this Civil War slaughter have been avoided? And what does Fort Sumter have to do with the riots at Charlottesville, Virginia and subsequent masked insurrections by the oxymoronically-named anti-fascists --”antifa”? The “antifa” group is known for its black-clad protesters wearing masks, physically attacking those it opposes and causing damage to property during its protests. One of its leaders, Scott Crow, said members use violence as a means of self-defense and they believe property destruction does not equate to violence. "There is a place for violence. Is that the world that we want to live in? No. Is it the world we want to inhabit? No. Is it the world we want to create? No. But will we push back? Yes," Crow said.

A month before the surrender of Fort Sumter, President Lincoln, on March 14, 1861, asked each of the members of his Cabinet their opinions on whether to provision or abandon Fort Sumter. His Post Master General -- and my great, great, grandfather -- Montgomery Blair responded the next day by letter. In that letter, Montgomery Blair wrote in part:

Post Office Department,
Washington, March 15, 1861.
To The President.

Sir: In reply to your interrogatory whether in my opinion it is wise to provision Fort Sumter under present circumstances, I submit the following considerations in favor of provisioning that fort.

The ambitious leaders of the late Democratic party have availed themselves of the disappointment attendant upon defeat in the late presidential election to found a military government in the seceding States.

To the connivance of the late administration, it is due alone that this rebellion has been enabled to attain its present proportions. It has grown by this complicity into the form of an organized government in seven States, and up to this moment nothing has been done to check its progress or prevent its being regarded either at home or abroad as a successful revolution.

I, in common with all my associates in your council, agree that we must look to the people of these States for the overthrow of this rebellion, and that it is proper to exercise the powers of the Federal Government only so far as to maintain its authority to collect the revenue and maintain possession of the public property in the States; and that this should be done with as little bloodshed as possible. How is this to be carried into effect ? That it is by measures which will inspire respect for the power of the Government, and the firmness of those who administer it, does not admit of debate.

They for the most part believe that the Northern men are deficient in the courage necessary to maintain the Government. The evacuation of Fort Sumter, when it is known that it can be provisioned and manned, will convince the rebels that the administration lacks firmness, and will therefore tend, more than any event that has happened, to embolden them; and so far from tending to prevent collision, will ensure it unless all the other forts are evacuated and all attempts are given up to maintain the authority of the United States.

This would completely demoralize the rebellion. The impotent rage of the rebels and the outburst of patriotic feeling which would follow this achievement, would initiate a reactionary movement throughout the South which would speedily overwhelm the traitors. It will in any event vindicate the hardy courage of the North, and the determination of the people and their President to maintain the authority of the Government, and this is all that is wanting, in my judgment, to restore it

I am, sir, very respectfully, Your obedient servant,

Montgomery Blair

The correlation of the “rebels” of South Carolina with the “antifa” movement of today makes Montgomery Blair’s March 1861 letter as relevant and prescient today as it was 150+ years ago. Antifa has “availed themselves of the disappointment attendant upon defeat in the late presidential election” to justify their violent action against those they deem in opposition to their agenda. As in 1861, “nothing has been done to check [antifa’s] progress or prevent its being regarded either at home or abroad as a successful revolution.”

Then, as now, the question is “How is [the establishment of federal authority] to be carried into effect? That it is by measures which will inspire respect for the power of the Government, and the firmness of those who administer it, does not admit of debate.” In 1861, the necessary “measures” were the provisioning of Fort Sumter so it could resist any attempt to remove it from federal control. In 2017, the virtual Fort Sumter at issue is the ability of Citizens to exercise their First Amendment right to “petition” peacefully without the threat of violence by antifa.

Hence, were Montgomery Blair writing President Trump today, I believe he would recommend measures against antifa-like violence from whatever part of the political spectrum it emanates that would “inspire respect for the power of the Government” to maintain the cornerstone right to peacefully assemble to petition. This being done regardless of the odiousness to the sensibilities of the public at large of the substance of the “petition” being made.

Montgomery Blair today would write President Trump and recommend "provisioning" the Department of Justice to investigate, and when warranted, criminally prosecute antifa members and their cohorts on the opposite end of the political spectrum for their grotesque 18 U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights violations.

As Montgomery Blair noted, “It will in any event vindicate the hardy courage of the North, and the determination of the people and their President to maintain the authority of the Government.”

DATE	DOCKET	TIME
Wed Mar 03 10:00 a.m.	OP 20-00556 Sibley v Steuben County Licencing Officer Chauncey Watches	10:00 a.m
Wed Mar 03 10:00 a.m.	OP 20-00776 Sibley v Steuben County FOIL Lawsuit	10:00 a.m