Amo Probos

Sibley v. Obama -- the Courts stall the litigation

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 07 May 2013 12:06:00 +0000

I haven’t updated my litigation efforts which seek to challenge the eligibility of Mr. Obama to be President as for almost two months the Courts have refused to move the lawsuits forward. However, I am still marching to the beat of that distant drum. Here is the present status of my efforts:

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

Second, in Sibley vs. Obama, I invoked the ancient writ of quo warranto to have the U.S. District Court compel Mr. Obama to demonstrate that he is eligible for the office of President. That suit was dismissed by the District Court. I perfected an appeal to which Mr. Obama moved to Summarily Affirm the District Court dismissal. I filed my Opposition on March 8, 2013, but the panel of three judges of the Circuit Court have refused to rule upon the government's motion.

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

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

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

Sibley v Obama -- Update on the Litigation

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:44:00 +0000

After -- conveniently -- the inauguration of Mr. Obama, the Courts in which I have litigation pending which challenges Mr. Obama's Article II, Section 1 eligibility, have moved the cases forward (or backwards if you love liberty and the concept of the rule of law).

In the first lawsuit – Sibley vs. Obama – I invoked the ancient writ of quo warranto to have the U.S. District Court compel Mr. Obama to demonstrate that he is eligible for the office of President. That suit was dismissed by the District Court. I perfected an appeal to which Mr. Obama moved to Summarily Affirm the District Court dismissal. I have filed my Opposition and now the matter sits in the hands of a panel of three judges of the Circuit Court.

My second lawsuit – Sibley vs. Alexander, Dinan and Lightfoot – is a class action complaint filed in D.C. Superior Court against the District of Columbia members of the so-called Electoral College as class representatives of the so-called Electoral College. The Complaint seeks an injunction preventing any and all of the 538 Electors authorized by the Twelfth and Twenty-Third Amendments to the Constitution from casting their votes for an ineligible candidate, i.e., Mr. Obama. To delay matters, the government removed the case from D.C. Superior Court to D.C. District Court which I forced to remand back to D.C. Superior Court in early January. Without letting me be heard, Judge Mott dismissed the suit in his Order dated March 5, 2013. I have filed a Motion to Vacate claiming the Order asinine. I will see what Judge Mott thinks of that in due course.

The third suit -- Sibley v D.C. Board of Election -- invokes an obscure D.C. law that allows a D.C. voter to mount a post-election challenge to an elected officials qualification for office. This suit expressly grants legal "standing" to a D.C. voter -- the legal bar which has been raised by the government to all previous challenges to Obama's eligibility. However, again denying oral argument, the Court ruled on March 13, 2013, that because it refused to address the case until after the inauguration, the matter is now "moot" and must be dismissed. That is one way of avoiding the issue. I am preparing a motion to reconsider which I will file shortly.

All this leads me to question whether Abraham Lincoln's resolution at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on November 19, 1863, that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" has, in fact, perished from these United States. For this is no longer a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" but instead a rapidly expanding oligarchy determined to expand its power over the People until there is no liberty left to them.

My Petition to Congress

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:02:00 +0000

Below is my letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees written in response to the denial of my Petition for Certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 15, 2013:

Greetings:

I write to Petition the Judicial Committee to take up the significant issue of the usurpation of legislative power by the Executive – with the express aid of the Judiciary – which power is expressly delegated to Congress by the Constitution. I deem this usurpation “significant” as it both: (i) trespasses upon the sole right of Congress to make the law and (ii) the People’s retained and reserved fundamental right to present evidence to a Grand Jury of the malfeasance of public officers. Let me explain.

The 91st Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) which states:

It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district. Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence. Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney's action or recommendation. (Emphasis added).

The background for §3332(a) is set out at 2 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. New, House Report No. 91-1549, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. (1970) at 4015: “Any such attorney who receives information of an alleged offense from any person must, if requested by the person, inform the grand jury of the alleged offense, the identity of the person who conveyed the information, and his own action or recommendation.”

Initial judicial interpretation of §3332(a) followed its plain mandate that the U.S. Attorney was obligated – “shall” is an imperative auxiliary verb after all – to “inform the grand jury of such alleged offense”. See: In the Matter of In re Grand Jury Application, 617 F. Supp. 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)(“Since the United States Attorney has been requested to present certain information to the Grand Jury he must do so. I will not relieve him of a duty which Congress has seen fit to impose. 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) imposes a ‘plainly defined and peremptory duty’ on the part of the United States Attorney to present the plaintiffs’ information concerning the alleged wrongdoing of the other defendants to the Grand Jury.”)

By enacting §3332(a), Congress was simply confirming the status quo which, from the commencement of our Republic, retained and reserved to the People under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments the right to present evidence of criminal behavior the Grand Jury. Take note that in 1895, Justice Brewer in Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 163 (1895) described a system relying on an energetic Grand Jury: “[I]n this country the common practice is for the Grand Jury to investigate any alleged crime, no matter how or by whom suggested to them, and after determining that the evidence is sufficient to justify putting the party suspected on trial, to direct the preparation of the formal charge or indictment.” (Emphasis added). Plainly, one of the historical purposes of the Grand Jury was to investigation government corruption. For example, although the infamous Tweed Ring in New York City was attacked by many well intentioned reformers, it took a New York City grand jury to actually break the Ring in 1872. The grand jury members conducted their own investigation, independent of the district attorney's office. See: United States District Attorney George Z. Medalie, Grand Juries Value, The Panel, Mar.-Apr. 1931, at 185.

As is well known, at his Press Conference on April 27, 2011, Barack Hussein Obama, II made the following statement regarding his Certificate of Live Birth (“COLB”): “As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth. Now, this issue has been going on for two, two and a half years now. I think it started during the . . . We've posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see.”

Whether or not Mr. Obama’s COLB is – and if he knew it to be – a forgery is not the issue of this Petition. I reviewed the matter personally, consulted with those with greater experience in such matters and concluded that it was a forgery. Coupled with significant questions surrounding Mr. Obama’s refusal to produce his: (i) college applications and transcripts from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School, (ii) U.S. Passport application, (iii) Social Security application, and (iv) Selective Service registration, I came to the conclusion that a federal crime had been committed and I deemed it appropriate upon my taken-oath to defend the Constitution from, among others, domestic enemies, to present that evidence to the Grand Jury in Washington, D.C.

Accordingly, upon the above-cited historical and legislative authority, on January 12, 2012, I properly “requested” Ronald C. Machen Jr., the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to inform the Grand Jury that Barack Hussein Obama, II may have violated a Federal criminal law, to wit, 18 U.S.C. §1343, “Fraud by wire, radio, or television”. Receiving no response from Mr. Machen, I then filed suit in the U.S. District Court against him seeking a court order to compel Mr. Machen to present my evidence to the Grand Jury.

In response, the District Court held that: “18 U.S.C. §3332 cannot be enforced by private individuals.” This stunning response apparently grafted on to §3332 a requirement that only government officials can invoke §3332 – something that is asinine when government officials are the subject of the alleged criminal offense. I properly took an appeal of this issue to the D.C. Circuit Court which – refusing to me both briefing and oral argument – summarily affirmed the District Court’s order. I then timely filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which on February 15, 2013, denied my Petition and thus confirmed that 18 U.S.C. §3332 no longer is the law of this Nation. See: U.S. Supreme Court Case #: 12-736.

Thus my task is done, for I can do no more, and yours – upon your oath of office – has just begun. Will you stand by and allow this usurpation of the fundamental and statutory right of the People to petition a Grand Jury to investigate criminal behavior be deleted by the Executive and Judicial cabal? Or, instead will you promptly address this grotesque affront to the Congressional authority to make the law and see it enforced as written? I trust the latter will be your course and will pray for this Republic’s future if you chose instead the former.

I am of course available to speak to these matters in greater detail and provide the referenced documents.

yours,

Montgomery Blair Sibley

How I celebrate President's Day 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:41:00 +0000

I thought it appropriate -- and a little bit funny -- to wait until President's Day to release my latest -- and I think last -- volley into the battle to establish that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, II, is ineligible to be President of the United States.

So today I am releasing a new computer-virus like Motion which seeks to emulate a computer generated Directed-Denial-of-Service network attack on the Federal Criminal Justice System. My Nyguen Motion arises from the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69 (2003), which held that any decision of an improperly constituted judicial body must be vacated. In total, Obama has appointed 173 judges, namely two Justices to the Supreme Court, 30 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals and 141 judges to the United States District Courts.

The argument of the Nyguen Motion is straightforward: (i) Article II, Section 2, clause 2 grants the President the power to “appoint” federal judges, (ii) Obama is not eligible to be President as he is not a “natural born Citizen” and has refused to tendered any admissible proof that he is even a U.S. Citizen, (iii) therefore, his appointments are void under the holding of Nguyen v. United States and (iv) accordingly, all judicial acts by those judges – specifically including incarcerating prisoners – are void.

I have released the Nyguen Motion to prisoners convicted by Obama-appointed Judges and their defense attorneys and I expect the Motion to be filed in dozens of cases by them in the near future. Like a DDoS computer attack, my Nyguen Motion will circulate among the prison population and criminal defense bar. Once the Motion is properly presented, the Courts will be forced to deal with the merits of Obama’s legitimacy as the doctrine of ‘standing’ will no longer be a barrier to adjudication. My Nyguen Motion forces the Courts to make the choice of issuing the requested subpoenas – thereby finally settling the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President – or affirming that the Sixth Amendment has been repealed by Judicial fiat because it threatens the status quo. Either way, we will know as a People whether it is time to convene a Constitutional Convention to re-assert our fundamental rights..

Not only in Denmark is something rotten . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:33:00 +0000

Part of the purpose of this blog is to document the shenanigans of the Courts which otherwise would go unnoticed by the general population.

So today I memorialize a neat trick by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals: Enter an order and then say you did not enter an order. Here are the facts which are more fully detailed in my Verified Motion For Emergency En Banc Hearing :

1. On November 29, 2012, I filed a lawsuit in the D.C. Court of Appeals captioned Sibley v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics and assigned Case. No.: 12-AA-1906.

2. On February 1, 2013, having not heard anything from the Court in that matter, I called the Clerk’s office and inquired of the Clerk as to the most recent activity in this matter. The Clerk informed me that on January 16, 2013, the Court entered an Order. I indicated that I had never received the Order and requested that a copy be immediately sent to me.

3. I then telephoned Terri Stroud, counsel for the Respondent, and inquired whether she had received the January 16, 2013, Order. Ms. Stroud replied that she had not received it but only had obtained a copy on February 1, 2013, by walking over to the Court to get a copy directly from the Clerk. As a matter of professional courtesy, Ms. Stroud then emailed a copy of the January 16, 2013, Order to me.

4. On February 6, 2013, I finally received by U.S. Mail a copy of the January 16, 2013, Order in an envelope dated stamped February 4, 2013.

5. On February 11, 2013, I received an Order dated February 6, 2013, in an envelope dated February 6, 2013. That Order stated: "no order was entered on January 16, 2013” and “petitioner's February 5, 2013, motion to vacate is denied as no order was entered”.

Plainly, the Clerk issued to both me and counsel for the Respondent the January 16, 2013, order stamped as “Filed January 16, 2013”. Either an order was entered on January 16, 2013, or it was not so entered. If the former is true, then the Court is prevaricating in its February 6, 2013, Order. If the latter is true, then someone is issuing forged orders to the parties in this case.

Either way, a felony has been committed under 18 U.S.C. § 2071: “Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally” which states:

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.

A priori, someone has “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies” a court record in violation of § 2071. Thus the very integrity of the judicial process has been compromised.

I have, of course, demanded that the U.S. Attorney present these allegations to the Grand Jury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3332, though I am not jejune: Getting that access is unlikely as the wagons are well circled here within the I-495 Beltway from intrusion by the People.

I Inject A Stuxnet-Like Motion Challenging Obama's Eligibility Into The Federal Criminal Justice Network

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:25:00 +0000

Stuxnet is a computer “worm” which spreads indiscriminately over computer networks. It includes a highly specialized malware payload that is designed to target only certain supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems that are configured to control and monitor specific industrial processes. In Stuxnet’s case, that SCADA system was the uranium enrichment infrastructure in Iran. Its success was spectacular.

I have released an analogous legal “worm” into an analogous network – the federal criminal justice system. The “worm” is my “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Application for Issuance of Subpoenas” which I have sent to a number of federal prisoners and their criminal defense attorneys. This legal “worm” will travel in that network until it reaches its intended target: individuals indicted/convicted of violating the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (“FERA”).

The Motion makes the simple argument that: (i) no federal law is valid under Article I, § 7, cl. 2, of the Constitution unless it is presented to the President, (ii) Obama is not a legitimate President and thus (iii) his signing of FERA is void. Accordingly, every person charged and/or convicted under FERA is entitled to be released.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees: “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” Thus the Motion demands federal subpoenas for Obama’s: (i) certificates of live birth, (ii) college applications from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School, (iii) U.S. Passport application, (iv) Social Security application and (v) Selective Service registration information – documents Obama has refused to reveal despite repeated requests.

Like the Stuxnet computer virus, my Motion will circulate among the prison population and criminal defense bar; both of which are very adept at bringing legal pleadings to Court. Once the Motion is properly presented, the Courts will be forced to deal with the merits of Obama’s legitimacy. The doctrine of "standing" will no longer be a barrier to adjudication. My Motion forces the Courts to make the choice of issuing the requested subpoenas – thereby finally settling the issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President – or affirming that the Sixth Amendment has been repealed by Judicial fiat because it threatens the status quo. Either way, we will know where we stand as a People and whether it is time to convene a Constitutional Convention to re-assert our fundamental rights in a federal judicial system which has evolved to ignore those sacred rights when they challenge the interests of the entrenched ruling class.

Common Sense

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:14:00 +0000

My last post mentioned the influential pamphlet Common Sense. Given the similarity of the tyranny then and now, I thought it timely to reprint a chapter from my monograph -- the Justicide Brief -- which surveyed Common Sense and its impact.

“This Humble Petition”

It was a hot July in Philadelphia when the Second Continental Congress took up a “humble petition” to King George III. This of course was not the well-know Declaration of Independence, for the year was 1775, not 1776.

Rather the “humble petition” has become known as the “Olive Branch Petition”. It was an effort to have the King address the differences of the colonies despite the fact that Canada had been invaded and Paul Revere, had “on the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five; Hardly a man is now alive, Who remembers that famous day and year” rode off to alert the Minutemen at Concord, Lexington and Bunker Hill.

The Petition stated:

Attached to your Majesty’s person, family, and Government, with all devotion that principle and affection can inspire; connected with Great Britain by the strongest ties that can unite societies, and deploring every event that tends in any degree to weaken them, we solemnly assure your Majesty, that we not only most ardently desire the former harmony between her and these Colonies may be restored, but that a concord may be established between them upon so firm a basis as to perpetuate its blessings, uninterrupted by any future dissensions, to succeeding generations in both countries, and to transmit your Majesty’s name to posterity, adorned with that signal and lasting glory that has attended the memory of those illustrious personages, whose virtues and abilities have extricated states from dangerous convulsions, and by securing the happiness to others, have erected the most noble and durable monuments to their own fame.

Among those who signed the Olive Branch Petition were the well-known founding fathers: John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Roger Sherman, Lewis Morris.

Lord Dartmouth received the Olive Branch Petition on September 1, 1775; King George refused to receive the Petition. Lord Dartmouth, when pressed for an answer reportedly said: “As His Majesty did not receive the petition on the throne, no answer will be given.”

Four months later, on January 10, 1776, a 46 page pamphlet appeared in the bookshops of Philadelphia. The pamphlet was simply titled: “Common Sense” and its author was a relatively unknown Scot named Thomas Paine. Remarkable for that time – or even this – it sold 120,000 copies in the next 90 days. As the colonies only had about 3 million people at that time, it was a phenomenal market penetration any publisher today would envy. Moreover, as Common Sense was read publicly and passed on to others, the actual readership was certainly several times the number of copies printed.

Common Sense decried the tradition, habit and superstition that created a population that “delighted in servitude than in freedom.”

First attacking the idea of a divine king, Common Sense pointed out that the British Monarch was created by a “French bastard landing with armed banditti” in 1066 – referring to William the Conqueror. The idea of a monarchy was again attacked when Common Sense inquired: “How a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguied like some new species . . .”

Continuing to pull the monarch off its pedestal, Common Sense ask if King George was the colonists’ “father, how could he so mistreat them? Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their own families.”

The deed was done. Rational men could no longer maintain the pretense that a monarch was anything but a Tyrant interested in his own power alone. Moreover, Common Sense brought home the point that a united front against the Crown was necessary.

It was the passions that Common Sense inflamed amongst the common man that gave clear direction to the delegates that would assemble the following July in Philadelphia. This time, the result would not be an Olive Branch, but a Declaration of Independence.

Anonymous & Me

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:07:00 +0000

The recent attack by Anonymous on the U.S. Sentencing Commission Website is being denounced as counter-productive by those who have self-tasked to dictate the proper manner of speech in the Cyberworld. E.g.: Skating on Stilts. My regret is that the message of Anonymous in this instance is being lost in the discussions on the propriety of the manner of their expression. That message not surprisingly deeply resonates with me.

In the preamble of the January 27, 2013, hack of the Sentencing Commission's website, Anonymous stated:

Anonymous has observed for some time now the trajectory of justice in the United States with growing concern. We have marked the departure of this system from the noble ideals in which it was born and enshrined. We have seen the erosion of due process, the dilution of constitutional rights, the usurpation of the rightful authority of courts by the "discretion" of prosecutors. We have seen how the law is wielded less and less to uphold justice, and more and more to exercise control, authority and power in the interests of oppression or personal gain.

Exactly so. Moreover, let us not forget that the most important pamphlet in the history of the United States -- Common Sense -- was originally published anonymously. Would that the People now were as passionate about their liberty and its loss as those then.

Waiver of right of respondent Barak H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond . . ..

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:44:00 +0000

The title of this blog post comes from my Quo Warranto suit which is pending at the U.S. Supreme Court for conference on February 15, 2013. Achieving a conference hearing before the Supremes is no big thing -- by properly filing a petition -- a task made difficult by the Supremes arcane petition printing requirements -- anyone will get a conference before the Supremes. I have had dozens.

And like those I have had before, I expect the Supremes to deny my Petition which seeks to challenge Mr. Obama's eligibility to be President and our fundamental and Congressionally-granted right as citizens to access the Grand Jury to present evidence of criminal behavior of government officials.

But what really bothered me about Mr. Obama "waiving his right" to respond to my properly presented allegations of ineligibility is that I firmly believe that our elected officials don't have a "right" to respond; but rather an "obligation" to respond.

And that is why I continue to press forward upon all legal fronts: I like to believe I live under the rule of law, though my faith is tested every time another court sticks its head in the sand for fear of offending the powers that be.

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:58:00 +0000

My second Quo Warranto suit against Mr. Obama was predictably dismissed by Judge Bates on December 19, 2012. His Order of Dismissal was premised upon the now familiar ground of "standing" -- a relatively recent judicial invention which imposes upon every lawsuit filed a requirement -- not found in the Constitution or enacted laws and unknown to the Framers -- that one have an "injury" before the Court has jurisdiction. The absurdity of this notion is found in applying the reductio ad absurdum argument to demonstrate that this "doctrine" creates an absurd result that necessarily follows from its acceptance. But I digress for this is not the time to detail the complexities and absurdities of the "standing" doctrine. I will take that up here and on appeal in due course.

Rather, a significant footnote to the Order of Dismissal: I timely moved to Vacate the Order of Dismissal and asked that Judge Bates Disqualify himself for -- among other reasons -- his employment of the pejorative term "birther" to describe me in the Order of Dismissal. The common understanding and ad hominem use of that term is: "A conspiracy theorist convinced of his/her intellectual superiority and rightness about Obama's birth on another planet, star or galaxy far, far away and long, long ago--or anywhere as long as it's not in the U.S."

In response, Judge Bates employed in his Order of Dismissal only one powerful legal argument to justify his use of the offensive term "birther" to me: "Other courts have applied this term to describe the same challenges that Sibley makes to President Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President." Oh, that makes it O.K. does it?

By that fine legal reasoning, because Hitler called the Jews "disease" and "vermin", Judge Bates could use those terms as well when determining a lawsuit brought before him by one of that faith.

Are we sure that life-time appointments for federal judges with absolute judicial immunity is really the way to go if this is the intellectual firepower we are getting?

1825 Days and Still Counting

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:00:00 +0000

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider Sibley v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, Case No.: 12-467. My Petition seeks review of the practice of the D.C. Court of Appeals of dismissing my suit before they allowed me to be heard on the Defendant's motion to dismiss. No sense hearing the other side when you have already made up your mind! Yet I have reason to believe they might not rule any time soon . . .

I have had a case, Sibley v. Alito et al, pending at the Supreme Court of the United States since January 4, 2008 -- some 1825 days. I think that is the record for a case pending without resolution at the Supreme Court. I have explained that case in detail before.

My point today is not the merits of that long pending case -- though I believe the case has great merit -- but rather how can a court refuse to decide a case for over five (5) years? I fear the answer is that through the collusion of the executive and judicial branches -- with the paralyzed legislative branch out to lunch -- we now have a system that immunizes its actors from any consequence for misfeasance or malfeasance in office. In my case, the Supremes can refuse to rule and there is no consequence. So why would they rule when to do so in my case would expose the very hypocrisy of the judicial system and its actors? They wouldn't and thus they don't.

Nice work if you can get it.

Is Judge Bates another Judge Sirica?

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:30:00 +0000

For those who don't recall, the Washington Post reported: "In 1973 Sirica ordered President Nixon to turn over tapes of White House conversations to special prosecutor Archibald Cox and congressional investigators. The Supreme Court upheld his ruling in July 1974, spurring Nixon's resignation in the face of impeachment. In all, 19 officials from the Nixon White House and reelection campaign were convicted."

Now, some forty years later, Judge Bates sits in the same posture as Judge Sirica. I have issued subpoenas for information related to the alleged criminal behavior of a sitting President who has sought to defraud the People as to his true provenance. Mr. Obama is fighting back mightily to prevent that evidence from being revealed.

Judge Bates can bury my subpoenas and likely close the door to the proof of Obama's birth contained in the 20th Century documents I seek. Or, refreshingly, a federal district court judge can remember why he is given a lifetime appointment and allow the truth to be revealed.

It is now out of my hands as I have taken this fight farther than anyone has and indeed as far as a private citizen can . . . now history turns to Judge Bates. Will Time Magazine recognize him as "Man of the Year" in 2013? Only Time, if you will excuse the pun, will tell.

God Has A Sense of Humor

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:41:00 +0000

On 12/12/12, further proof – as if needed – that God exists and has a sense of humor became apparent to me. What do you think?

As I mentioned in my last post, on 12/12/12, I filed at the U.S. Supreme Court my petition for certiorari (review) of the dismissal of my first quo warranto action against Mr. Obama. One of the central arguments of that petition was:

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

My reference to George Orwell arose from his use of the term “doublespeak” in his novel “1984”.

Now I have another lawsuit filed in D.C. Superior Court against the members of the so-called Electoral College. Using a procedural device found at 28 U.S.C. §§1441, the Defendants in that suit “removed” on 12/12/12 the case from D.C. Superior Court to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The tactical reasons for that move by the Defendants are not really relevant to this post – the number assigned to the “removed” case in the D.C. District Court is: 12-1984. Ha, ha.

Oh, and by the way, George Orwell’s real name is: Eric Arthur Blair. I too am a Blair.

Finally, the seminal case on the Electoral College is: Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 225 (1952). Just to run this a little further, a homonym of “Ray” is “Rei” which in Latin means “King”, so that Ray v. Blair might also be read as King v. Blair, which is what all this is about as I thought we dissolved “the political bands which have connected” us with a monarchical form of government in 1776.

I hope I am not wrong and that we still live where:

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 220, 261 (1882).

And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:12:00 +0000

The first wave of my litigation regarding Mr. Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States will wash-up upon the steps of the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday. My first quo warranto suit against Mr. Obama – filed last January – was dismissed by the District Court in June. Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – refusing me full briefing and oral argument – summarily affirmed the lower court’s dismissal.

That allows me to file a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court asking them to review three significant questions: First, have we as a People lost the right to challenge the qualifications of an elected official to hold a public office? This is what the lower courts have now held. I don't believe the Framers intended that the fox be trusted to guard the chickens.

Second, to prevent my asserting my fundamental right to alert the Grand Jury that there is reason to believe that Mr. Obama has committed wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343, "Fraud by wire, radio, or television", can the judiciary – using Orwellian “doublespeak” – swap the employment by Congress in 18 U.S.C. §3332(a) of the imperative auxiliary verb “shall” with discretionary auxiliary verb “may”? That statute obligates the U.S. Attorney to present evidence to the Grand Jury when requested. The lower courts have changed the language of §3332(a) from “Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury” to “Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person [may], if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury.” How does that work?

Third, and most pressing, I argue that the natural law prohibition against legal indeterminacy prevents the lower courts from employing the tactics of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei of using ambiguous legal terms-of-art to achieve the same goals: a revolutionary transformation of the legal order from that envisioned by the Framers to an alternative order which permits the unregulated exercise of brute power employed to assault the fundamentals of the rule of law to the end of creating a modern federal Volksgebundenheit and Artgleichheit through the creation of de facto and de jure Volksgerichts.

Obviously, more to come . . .

I file a Third Lawsuit Challenging Obama’s Eligibility

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:46:00 +0000

Though residents of the District of Columbia are denied the right to voting Representation in Congress and to control their local affairs – rights all other United States citizens enjoy – the residents of the District of Columbia have been exclusively granted by Congress a right no non-District of Columbia resident possesses: The right to a post-election challenge to the qualifications for office of any elected official. That statutorily-granted legal “standing” to challenge qualifications is found at D.C. Code §11-1001.11(b)(1).

Accordingly, as I am singularly qualified in many respects to file such a suit, I have this day filed a Petition for Review in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals seeking to challenge the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama, II to occupy the Office of President of the United States. Additionally, I filed an Omnibus Motion in that matter seeking subpoenas for Mr. Obama’s: (i) original birth certificates, (ii) Selective Service and Social Security records, (iii) college applications and transcripts from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School and (iv) his passport records – all documents Obama has refused to reveal.

What has he got to hide? I must say in my experience where there is smoke, there is usually fire. I think the public has a right to know the truth about Mr. Obama's background.

Sibley Files Motion to Hold Obama in Contempt-of-Court

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:23:00 +0000

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 original birth certificates when subpoenaed? No objection was filed by Mr. Obama or his attorneys. He simply chose to ignore a lawful court process. Such disdain and disregard of the rule of law is appalling from one who – pursuant to Article II, §1 – has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Everyone else in these United States has to follow the law and prove -- as required by 8 USCS § 1324a -- that they are legally entitled to work before beginning a job. Why does Mr. Obama believe he is above that law and can ignore it?

The Opening Charge

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:00:00 +0000

In my lawsuit challenging the ability of the Electoral College members to vote for Obama, the Judge has set on an expedited basis my motion for preliminary injunction. The date for the hearing is November 29, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. In preparation for that hearing I have subpoenaed from Barack Hussein Obama, II, both his Short-Form “Certificate of Live Birth” and Long-Form “Certificate of Live Birth” which are the sole evidence that Mr. Obama has proffered to the American People to establish his eligibility for the Office of President.

As most eloquently stated in State ex rel. Whiteman v. Chase, 5 Ohio St. 528, 534 (1856): “Under our system of government, no officer is placed above the restraining authority of the law, which is truly said to be universal in its behests, all paying it homage, the least as feeling its care, and the greatest as not being exempt from its power.”

We will soon see if that laudable 19th Century aspiration lives-on in the 21st Century.

Sibley vs. Obama – The Final Battle Begins

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:53:00 +0000

I am a Juris Doctor – a Doctor of Laws – and I believe my patient, the U.S. Constitution is sick. I have taken an oath to: “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.”

I am also a soccer goalie – I have been so for over forty (40) years. Those of us who choose that position know we are the last line of defense and, unlike the other players who only use their feet, we must use our entire bodies to stop the attackers.

Thus it should come as no surprise that I will exhaust all legal remedies to discharge my oath to see that Barrack Hussein Obama, II demonstrates that he is eligible to be President before I will admit defeat. The argument – for those who heretofore have refused to hear it – is simple:

1. Article II, §1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the President be a “natural born Citizen”.

2. The phrase “natural born Citizen” is an 18th Century legal-term-of-art defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

3. Obama's Father was not a United States Citizen when Obama was born.

Ergo, Obama may not be President of the United States as only one of his parents was a United States Citizen.

Until a Court of competent jurisdiction re-defines the phase “natural born Citizen”, I cannot stand by and watch my patient be put to a slow death. After Article II, §1, clause 5 is interred by judicial abstention from adjudication of this "case or controversy", what section will be next to go? Trial by jury?

Accordingly, this day I have filed two lawsuits in the District of Columbia. The first Complaint – Sibley vs. Obama – invokes the ancient writ of quo warranto to have the U.S. District Court compel Mr. Obama to demonstrate that he is eligible for the office of President. The questionable certificates of live births released by Mr. Obama, his questionable social security number and selective service registration and his refusal to authorize release of college transcripts which would establish his status as a "natural born Citizen" are all brought to the Court’s attention by the Complaint. Everyone else in these United States has to demonstrate they are U.S. Citizens in order to be employed, why not Mr. Obama before he is employed by us as our President?

The second Complaint – Sibley vs. Alexander, Dinan and Lightfoot – is a class action complaint filed in D.C. Superior Court against the District of Columbia members of the so-called Electoral College as class representatives of the so-called Electoral College. The Complaint seeks an injunction preventing any and all of the 538 Electors authorized by the Twelfth and Twenty-Third Amendments to the Constitution from casting their votes for an ineligible candidate, i.e., Mr. Obama. My Motion for Preliminary Injunction is pending a hearing date to be set by Judge John Mott.

Perhaps my efforts are only proof of Alexander Pope’s maxim that: “Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread.” On the other hand, I will rest soundly the night of January 21, 2013, knowing that what happens next did not occur because I did nothing. Will you?

My last 155 days . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:10:00 +0000

Since my last post on April 24, 2012, I have been busy laying straw on the back of the camel of judicial tyranny. These efforts are directed to enforcing the "rule of law" found at Article II, Section 1 (“No person except a natural born Citizen . . ., shall be eligible to the Office of President”) and “the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not Wasted.” Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 130 (1922)

While it appears to me most others talk the talk on this issue, I have been walking the walk. Here is a short synopsis of my efforts over the last 155 days:

In Sibley vs Obama et al, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Case No.:12-5198, the judges of that Court have entered orders: (i) refusing to expedite the appeal and (ii) delaying briefing on the appeal for an indefinite period. This case was filed as a quo warranto case in the U.S. District Court which dismissed my claims for, among other grounds, lack of standing. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has likewise refused to intervene in this matter to expedite it. Hence, I expect this case will not be resolved prior to November 6, 2012.

In Sibley v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, Case No.:12-AA-516, I challenged in the D.C. Court of Appeals the certification by BOEE of Obama as an eligible candidate for President. The Court ruled that BOEE had made Obama eligible by its administrative action.

In Sibley v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, Case No.:2012 CA 004892, I challenged in the D.C. Superior Court BOEE’s failure to consider the evidence that Obama is not eligible. The Court dismissed that case upon a finding that it did not have jurisdiction over BOEE. No written order has been entered in that matter yet.

In Sibley v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, Case No.:12-AA-1498, I again went to the D.C. Court of Appeals seeking an order directing the BOEE to take up my Request to investigate Obama’s eligibility. Remarkably, the D.C. Court of Appeals dismissed that case the day after BOEE filed its motion to dismiss and before I had received the motion to dismiss. I have filed a motion to reconsider but I don’t expect much relief.

Thus, that brings these pre-November 6, 2012, litigation efforts to a practical procedural end. I will see the appeal through to post-election conclusion but realistically, these cases won’t serve as a basis for any Court to void the election – no sitting judge has the strength-of-will to do so in my opinion.

Which raises the question: Quaenam sit fieri? Wait and see.

Justice Delayed, Justice Denied and the Number 23

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:42:00 +0000

It was no surprise to me that last Friday the Supreme Court denied my request that they expedite the determination of my petition which sought to compel the District Court to expedite resolution of my quo warranto suit against Barack Hussein Obama, II.

It is particularly saddening however. As of Friday, twenty-three (23) magistrates (1 District Court judge, 13 Circuit Court judges and 9 Supreme Court Justices) have refused to promptly adjudicate a seminal question: What does the eligibility requirement of Article II, Section 1 that a President be a "natural born Citizen" mean? That question has never been directly answered by a federal court; though the considered weight of the legal scholarship on that issue persuasively concludes it means: (i) born in the United States, (ii) of two United States citizens. Clearly, Mr. Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen. Ergo, Mr. Obama is not eligible to be President. In the 19th Century, that refusal to adjudicate would have been considered "treason to the Constitution" and a magistrate might well have lost his life-time appointment to the bench.

But what of the number 23? I don't mean to go all Kabbalah but I am headed now to the Grand Jury as that is last bastion of the citizen's right to compel their government to comply with the law. How many jurors are there on the Grand Jury? That's right, Twenty Three.

Sibley vs. D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:01:00 +0000

As it should be clear by now, I believe that Barack Hussein Obama, II does not qualify as a "natural born Citizen" which, along with being over 35 years of age and a U.S. resident for fourteen years, are the three requirements found in the Constitution at Article II, Section 1, for anyone to be President. While my quo warranto lawsuits drags through the federal District and Circuit courts and pends at the United States Supreme Court, I have decided to challenge Mr. Obama's eligibility from a different angle.

Today I filed a Petition for Review with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. That Petition seeks judicial review of the determination by the D.C. Board of Elections that Barack Hussein Obama, II, is eligible to appear on the November 6, 2012, General Election ballot as the Democratic Party nominee for President.

In particular, I noted in the Petition that Obama’s “Affidavit of Democratic Candidate” failed to provide any basis for the D.C. Board of Elections to discharge their statutory duty imposed pursuant to D.C. Code §1-1001.05(14) which states that the D.C. Board of Elections is obligated to: “Determine that candidates meet the statutory qualifications for office; . . .” Though I admit that there is ambiguity in the D.C. statutes and regulations, I nonetheless maintain that D.C. Board of Elections Executive Director Clifford D. Tatum’s letter of January 9, 2012, confirming that Obama is eligible to appear on the D.C. ballot as the Democratic Presidential candidate, appears to have failed to properly discharge that duty.

Accordingly, based upon the substantial legal arguments and factual proffers contained in the Petition, I have asked the D.C. Court of Appeals to review the D.C. Board of Election’s determination that Obama is eligible to be President and reverse that determination and remove Obama’s name from the ballot for President in the November 6, 2012, General Election.

The Petition will now be served upon the D.C. Board of Elections which will have an opportunity to respond.

The Issues are Joined

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:18:00 +0000

In my quo warranto lawsuit against Obama, as we say in the Law, the issues are now joined for the Court's determination. Last week, the Defendants filed their motion to dismiss my lawsuit seeking to oust Obama and have access to the Grand Jury to present evidence of Obama's arguably criminal behavior relating to his putative certificate of birth.

In response to the quo warranto writ Obama said that the only person who could bring that suit is his Attorney General, Eric Holder. That's convenient and not likely to happen anytime during the next four years.

In response to my demand made pursuant to the First Amendment's guarantee of the right to petition and the duty imposed through 18 U.S.C. §3332 by Congress on the Attorney General to present evidence of criminal behavior to the Grand Jury when requested, the Defendant Attorney General said in sum and substance "I can ignore Congress and while Mr. Sibley may have a right to Petition the Grand Jury, he can't enforce that right. Neh, Neh, Neh Boo, Boo." (O.K., I added that last part) Kim Jong Un probably wishes he had thought of that!

My Memorandum of Law in Opposition has been drafted and filed. Needless to say it argues the opposite and a lot more to boot.

So now Judge Bates will act as Referee and decides who wins when he gets around to it.

Fate of the Republic to be Decided April 20th

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:49:00 +0000

I think the Gods must have a sense of humor to choose April 20th (420) to have Obama's fate decided. Particularly, as a previous post of mine related Obama's lying to the public about his support of state's rights and medical marijuana during his 2008 campaign.

On April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to fast-track the determination of Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President. The unresolved question is whether, with a father who was a British subject, Obama can qualified as President as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as a "natural born Citizen". The considered weight of the legal scholarship on that question is a resounding "No!". Yet if this issue is never allowed to be adjudicated, then the constrictors of the Constitution are no longer in force and effect. Instead that hallowed document is to be considered by the Supreme Court as aspirational alone in its effect: Something I am quite sure the Framers did not intend.

On April 20, if the Supreme Court agrees to fast track the determination of Obama's eligibility, a decision will be had on that issue before the September 2012 Democratic convention. If they instead let the judicial process grind on for years -- and I have had a case, 07-6522, pending at the Supreme Court for over four (4) years -- then the question of Obama's eligibility to be President may only be decided after his second term expires.

In that case, though we have Constitutional right to a President who is a "natural born Citizen", we have no way of enforcing that right.

I Force the Supreme Court to Rule on Obama’s Eligibility to Be President

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:00:00 +0000

I guess my work is done in one sense. I have, as few could and fewer still would, properly placed before the United States Supreme Court the question of whether Barack Hussein Obama, II, is Constitutionally eligible to be President?

I have done this by filing this morning a Petition for Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. That Petition presents the Supreme Court with record evidence that: (i) Barack Hussein Obama, II, is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, §1 of the Constitution and thus is ineligible to be President and (ii) that the “Certificates of Live Birth” released by Mr. Obama are in fact forgeries. Additionally, I filed a Motion to Expedite Consideration of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. By these documents, I ask the U.S. Supreme Court to expedite the resolution of my Quo Warranto lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court before the Honorable John D. Bates. Significantly, though eighty-five (85) days have passed since I filed the lawsuit on January 3, 2012, Judge Bates has refused to rule upon any of the pending matters in that suit.

I thus have now forced the Supreme Court to declare whether they will take up the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President or allow the question to be relegated to a judicial process that would not reach the Supreme Court until well after the November 6, 2012, election, let alone before the September 3, 2012, Democratic Convention.

Obama’s eligibility to be President is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. I have properly invoked the federal statute which authorizes challenges to the eligibility of federal office holders and procedurally have now moved that question from the District Court through the Circuit Court of Appeals and now, with these filings, to the Supreme Court. If they deny my Petition to expedite resolution of the significant and fairly-posed question of Obama’s eligibility, it is a clear statement that they will refuse to allow that matter to be properly and promptly adjudicated. In that case, I fear “We the People” will have lost “the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law.” Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 130 (1922). For if the Supreme Court will not take up the issue of whether the Government is being administered according to the rule of law, then the Government is clearly being administered instead by the rule of whim and caprice.

Thus I call upon the Supreme Court to forthwith resolve this heretofore unresolved question: Is Barack Hussein Obama, II, eligible to be President of the United States?

I would hope you too would make that call upon them by sending the Supreme Court a letter asking they take up and promptly decide the Sibley v. Obama petition.

Appeals Court Finds No Need to Hurry On Quo Warranto Suit

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 22:22:00 +0000

When 40 days had gone by without Judge Bates ruling on my Petition for Quo Warranto to test Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be President, I went to the Circuit Court of Appeal and asked them to order Judge Bates to rule one way or the other. The basis of my request is that the election is now only some 200 days away and this question needs to be settled sooner rather than later.

In response, a three judge panel of the Circuit Court held: “The district court’s delay in ruling on the petition for writ of quo warranto is not so egregious or unreasonable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.” Really?!

I have gone back to the Circuit Court and asked all thirteen Judges of that Court if they agree that it is not a pressing matter that the President may not be eligible to hold that office. My Petition for Re-Hearing En Banc or, Alternatively, Panel Rehearing concludes by asking: “What greater question of “public importance” demanding “prompt resolution” can there be than whether the sitting President of the United States is ineligible to serve in that capacity?”

We will see what they say and then it is on to the literal court of last resort . . .