Saturday, January 7, 2012


Write-in Presidential Candidate Files Writ of Quo Warranto to Oust Obama And/Or Prevent Obama From Accessing 2012 Ballot

Montgomery Blair Sibley v. Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Ronald Machen - Writ of Quo Warranto - United States District Court For The District Of Columbia - Case Assigned To Obama Appointed District Judge Amy Berman Jackson - 

Re: Request to Institute Quo Warranto Proceeding Against Barack Obama pursuant to District of Columbia Code, Division II, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Title 16, Particular Actions, Proceedings and Matters, Chapter 35, §§ 3501-3503

Greetings,

I write as an “interested person” requesting that you institute Quo Warranto proceeding against Barack Obama pursuant to D.C. Code, Division II, Title 16, Chapter 35, §3502 on your own motion, or if you prefer, upon relation to me.

As an initial matter, I maintain that I am a “person interested” as referenced in §3503 as I am a declared write-in candidate for the November 6, 2012, election for the office of President of the United States. See: Exhibit “A”. As such, under the plain language of Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915), I have standing to make this request of you.

Clearly, under §3501, Barack Obama, “within the District of Columbia . . .holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States”, to wit, (i) in the District of Columbia, a place upon the November 6, 2012, ballot as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States and (ii) the office of President of the United States. As more fully described below, I maintain that, in both cases, he “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully” holds or exercises such franchise and/or public office in violation of §3501.

Indisputably, in order to be President of the United States, Article II, §1, of the U.S. Constitution requires: “No person except a natural born Citizen . . ., shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The phrase “natural born Citizen” is a 18th Century legal term of art with a definite meaning. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, that phrase was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (The Law of Nations, Emerich de Vattel, 1758, Chapter 19, § 212).

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, stating: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” (Farrand's Records, Volume 3, LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington). Subsequently, On August 22, 1787, it was proposed at the Constitutional Convention that the presidential qualifications were to be a “citizen of the United States.” (Farrand's Records – Journal, Wednesday August 22nd 1787). It was referred back to a Committee, and the 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. (Farrand's Records, Journal, Tuesday September 4, 1787).

Though there is no record of debates upon the subject, the Federalist Papers contain a contemporary comment on it written by Alexander Hamilton which reads: “Nothing was more to be desired, than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of Republican government, might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?” (The Federalist Papers, LXVIII.)

Supporting this view, is Mr. Justice Story who wrote: “It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States . . . The general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. (Story on the Constitution, Vol. 2, page 353-54.)

Clearly, Barack Obama has represented that he is the son of a non-citizen of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who was a citizen of Kenya. Accordingly, upon the law and facts, Barack Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully” holds – and seeks again to be elected to – the office of President of the United States.

CONTINUED BELOW AND HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/77432908/Montgomery-Blair-Sibley-v-Barack-Obama-Quo-Warranto-United-States-District-Court-for-the-District-of-Columbia

SCION OF PROMINENT 19TH CENTURY POLITICAL FAMILY ANNOUNCES WRITE-IN CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND FILES QUO WARRANTO SUIT CHALLENGING OBAMA’S “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” STATUS - PRESS RELEASE HERE -


ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Montgomery Blair Sibley v Barack Obama - Quo Warranto - United States District Court for the District of Co...

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

43 comments:

  1. It seems the well-hung Mr. Sibley has ignored the law defining "interested person." As the courts have held, an interested person for quo warranto purposes is the guy who lost the election to the usurper but should have won it. Methinks Montgomery is a bit premature in that regard.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The quotes by Founders Alexander Hamilton and Mr. Justice Story are such great arguments as to WHY the natural born citizenship clause is in the Constitution and from the Founders themselves. It makes me even more disgusted that Glenn Beck, the modern champion of the Founding Fathers, can trash the Birthers on the radio, and never mention this. We’re talking about the overthrow of the American government by foreigners, or “deadly adversaries of Republican government”. And what are we seeing right now if not that?

    One of the reasons I don’t think there is more writings from the Founders on this subject, is because it’s a hypothetical situation to them. I would bet just like today, where it seems 90% of the people are in denial about what is happening to this country, many of the Founders couldn’t imagine this ever occurring and probably laughed it off and didn't give it much thought.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This must be thought of as the act of seperating the wheate from the chaff. This judge was appointed by BHO and there is no chance this will go anywhere except a list of individuals that have aided and abetted this fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Re #5, How did Sibley announce his candidacy on November 11, 2012? Does anyone proofread these before submission?

    ReplyDelete
  5. to obot anon 1 above, the law reads as follows , directly from the DC code


    The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.


    the interested party is this third person party, says nothing of anything of your matter.

    your post decimated again, go away or state your case law with references so you don't look like a freaking fool, yet again

    ReplyDelete
  6. At least not Taitz.

    But where is Donofrio? Apuzzo? Berg? Pidgeon?

    ReplyDelete
  7. @anaon. 12:27..... an "interested person" is anyone who faces any opponent in an election. Any opponent, whether it be an incumbent or a new entry into the election.

    She is not running against the ice-cream man, she desires that any opponent including the current incumbent be "qualified" according to the rules of the Constitution, which happens to be the "law of the land".

    The fact that the current incumbent is holding the office illegally is totally irrelevant to the issues and facts of this current case. Its called common sense.

    Lawyers who defend criminals never use common sense. Their arguments are often emotional and appeal to people who like to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy style of justice. That's what they're paid to do. They're paid to spout nonsense and confuse the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Keep the pressure on, word on the street is that Obama is running scared and is in panic mode. It won't be long before he caves.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Newman v U.S. ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U. S. 537 (1915) dooms Sibley's case as he is not an "interested person" per SCOTUS. The D.C. courts agreed in Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

    Sibley should have challenged Obama's placement on the DC ballot.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Anonymous

    Read Newman v. United States, 238 U.S. 537 (1915).

    At this point the plaintiff is a third person, after the 2012 election he will be an interested party.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Quote:

    "Keep the pressure on, word on the street is that Obama is running scared and is in panic mode. It won't be long before he caves."

    I agree there are cracks it the Obot shield that has been protecting Barry the usurper. Also, the "Alinsky" tactics have been reversed and those who still are defending the usurper are on the receiving end for a welcomed change.

    Keep up the pressure and ignore the Obots, they are becoming more irrational and more desperate in their efforts to defend the indefensible.

    Of course the paid Obot lawyers aren't going to quit as long as money is printed by the regime to pay them. They have no soul and no shame.

    ReplyDelete
  12. this man is a weirdo. why did you give him credence? he is perpetually marching in a bagpipe parade!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKf1IdlDErc

    Like Andy Martin from South Flordia and now Chicago, these jerks are publicity hounds who market themselves as "important".

    Who is the female pictured in this article?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "these jerks are publicity hounds who market themselves as "important"."

    Like Orly Taitz?

    The picture is the judge. When you click the image it goes to the bio of the judge.

    ReplyDelete
  14. great case, wrong plaintiff. Mr. Sibley has a very eccentric profile.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Anonymous @ 8:44

    "the interested party is this third person party, says nothing of anything of your matter.

    your post decimated again, go away or state your case law with references so you don't look like a freaking fool, yet again"

    ________________

    Maybe you need to read what Mario Apuzzo has written on this.

    An “interested person” is defined in Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915), in a case involving a public office one would have to have “an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself…” and be filing an action against another who allegedly usurped that office. Newman requires that the plaintiff be “actually and personally interested” in the office and that there be another person against whom the action is brought who has unlawfully occupied the office in question. In other words -- as Mario Apuzzo has clearly explained (but you have clearly ignored) -- the plaintiff must himself make a claim to the office in order to qualify to bring the action.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Anonymous @ 9:30

    "But where is Donofrio? Apuzzo? Berg? Pidgeon?"


    Berg nearly got himself sanctioned in DC, so he won't touch this.

    Apuzzo has pointed out that the only plaintiff who has standing in a quo warranto case is a person who himself has a claim to the office, not a candidate.

    Leo likes to blog, but he won't actually litigate.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Obots never address the heart of this matter called "The Truth".

    And "The Truth" is: Obama is not a natural born citizen, no ands, ifs, or buts...

    Obots have no integrity and their treasonous, usurper non-president will be forced out.

    Ron Paul 2012!

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.

    >>>the DC law says a "third person" not interested party. Decimated again......

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Anonymous @ 4:16


    "The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.

    >>>the DC law says a "third person" not interested party. Decimated again......"


    ___________

    Read further, jerk. The very next section states:


    § 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.

    If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.


    "the interested person" -- got that?

    ReplyDelete
  20. It seems to me that Obama's position is so weak, it's jello.

    Suppose we had a free press, one that practiced journalism. Could he last a day? The real tragedy, for me, is the dishonest media.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yes, we need to oust this President Obama! He is a fraud and should never have been put on a ballot! He is NOT a natural born citizen! Why hadn't anyone impeached this man???
    I'm just a middle class person but I saw from the early days something was seriously wrong with him. And YES, I was right. We the people of the United States wants our Republic back. This man is totally destroying it!!! I feel that Eric Holder should also leave with Obama. These people are as bad as bad can be!!!! Save our Country and get rid of them completely!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. [...]the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has held that only the Attorney General may bring a quo warranto action against a public official. Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (citing United States v. Carmody, 148 F.2d 684, 685 (D.C. Cir. 1945)) (“[T]his court has stated that actions against public officials (as opposed to actions brought against officers of private corporations) can only be instituted by the Attorney General.”).

    ReplyDelete
  23. You are absolutely right Bruce:

    "It seems to me that Obama's position is so weak, it's jello.

    Suppose we had a free press, one that practiced journalism. Could he last a day? The real tragedy, for me, is the dishonest media."

    Without absolute control of the MSM, especially the formally "fair and balanced" Fox News, Barry would be totally revealed for the usurper he is a matter of a few days at most.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Steve Pidgeon is a traitor! He sold out Commander Fitzpatrick in Monroe County and now that hero rots in jail.

    I don't know if this case is going anywhere but it does not matter.

    Orly Taitz is take Soetero to trial on the 26th and will depose him. He will be arrested that same day, I'm sure.

    Go, Lady Liberty!

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Anonymous

    Ron Paul in 2012? I think not. For all his hammering on the Constitution, have you heard anything from him about 'natural born citizen' or O's fake bc. Moreover, his Neville Chamberlain -esque appeasement policies would throw Israel under the bus and tell all our allies we can't be trusted. Paul is dangerous. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Orly Taitz is take Soetero to trial on the 26th and will depose him"
    *****

    Obama won't even be at the hearing, only his private attorney will be there, so Orly won't be deposing him. In fact, she has not even filed any such motions.

    You're an idiot and that's coming from a staunch Birther.

    Stop drinking the Orly-Aid.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Anonymous @ 9:03

    Sorry to disappoint you, but there will be no depositions. The judge denied a motion to allow depositions.

    In fact, the defendants stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii. It's not even an issue. Obama doesn't have to prove he was born in Honolulu, and the defendants won't be offering any evidence that he wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "The judge denied a motion to allow depositions"
    ****

    That is because Attorney Hatfield's motion for leave to take depositions was in response to Obama's motion to dismiss. The judge denied Obama's motion to dismiss which made that motion for leave to take depositions moot. That is why it was denied.

    Read the ruling.

    It is quite likely more motions for leave to take depositions will be filed by either one of the lawyers in the 3 separate cases in Georgia.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Georgia Citizen

    Plaintiffs in two of three cases don't need to take depositions. They have agreed that Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. Their cases are entirely built on getting a ruling on a question of law, not fact.

    The third case is Orly's. You think she even knows how to file a motion for leave to take a deposition? If so, think again.

    ReplyDelete
  30. -"But where is Donofrio? Apuzzo? Berg? Pidgeon?"

    GOOD QUESTION! Dunno, but you know were Orly is. You'll find her on the FRONT LINE, FIGHTING. Doing the job that no one else does cause they just don't have the BALLS. The same place she's been for the past 3 yrs. or so. About the same amount of time all you INGRATES have'nt done shit..!

    -Stop drinking the Orly-Aid.

    Yeah go drink the Pidgeon, Berg, or Kreep Aid instead... Good luck with that...

    All that cut down Orly are pieces of shit. AND part of the problem. I bet you all voted for the FU$%ER.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @Commykiller

    Shut-up with the nonsense. Orly is not the only person or attorney doing something.


    How many more fuck ups and misfilings will it take for you to see the light?

    How much does Orly pay you to come here and defend her incompetent ass?

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Orly Taitz is take Soetero to trial on the 26th and will depose him. He will be arrested that same day, I'm sure.

    Go, Lady Liberty!"

    LOL

    There's no "trial." There's a hearing.

    Orly won't be deposing Obama, and there sure as hell would be no arrest that same day even if she were. Geez... get a grip.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I hope too see all of you Obongo supporters in the
    fema camps being prepared at this moment for all
    whites and maybe even a few negroes. Keep supporting this racist communist muslim traitor who is really a descendent of Malcom X.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Orly is the best. No other attorney comes close. They don't have the balls and/or guts to stand up and say what needs to be said. I used to follow some of the others but all they do is what we're doing, nothing. Not to mention practically every member of this traitorous congress is an attorney. Look, it's real easy. Competition produces quality. Where are other attorneys challenging the illegal alien on a daily basis, and, at the same time, giving Orly a run for her money? They're afraid of Orly too, unwilling to put their money where their mouth is. Cowards, all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Actually, by the number of negative comments against Orly, she's obviously doing a good job. Orly is close, and getting closer. Although, I would have to say, at this point, the truth is already known by all on both sides. Having to wrestle with resolving this is upon us. Let's get this damn thing over with and all invloved held accountable. We'll end up giving new meaning to the word "Freedom".

    ReplyDelete
  36. Lady Liberty is the only attorney who is bringing Soetero to trial.

    You Obots attacking her are disgusting.

    Read her website. She can depose Obama now and is taking him to trial on the 26th. But I suppose you Obots know better than she does.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "She can depose Obama now and is taking him to trial on the 26th."

    Not true and stop spreading lies. No motion for leave to depose has been filed by Orly.

    ReplyDelete
  38. All of this bickering back and forth...and TPTB snickering away in the background...

    Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country. True patriots should be supporting any and all attempts to make a breakthrough into a court of law in this perfidious matter. If you have a bleat to make, do a better job of it yourself.

    Tempus fugit.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dealio said...[Reply]

    - Actually, by the number of negative comments against Orly, she's obviously doing a good job. Orly is close, and getting closer.

    Orly is in exactly the same spot she was in when she began... as is everyone else.

    - Although, I would have to say, at this point, the truth is already known by all on both sides.

    It's certainly known by one side.

    - Having to wrestle with resolving this is upon us. Let's get this damn thing over with and all invloved held accountable. We'll end up giving new meaning to the word "Freedom".
    January 8, 2012 8:02 AM

    You are assuming a resolution against Obama. If it's resolved in favor of Obama?

    The GA case has a decent chance of going up through the courts. If SCOTUS were to decide that he's eligible, then do you accept that or not?

    I would ask the same question of the other side... if SCOTUS said no, he's not, would they accept the ruling?

    ReplyDelete
  40. 3:49 PM, What is the truth? And what side knows it?

    ReplyDelete
  41. 3:49 PM, Sounds like you're testing the waters. Like I said, both sides know. There is no compromise.

    ReplyDelete
  42. > Orly is the best. No other attorney comes close.

    Then how comes it wasn't Orly but Farrar's (sp?) lawyer who brought a case that the judge didn't dismiss?

    > by the number of negative comments against Orly, she's obviously doing a good job

    So according to your opinion the person who gets the most negative comments is doing the best job? Well, then Obama must be the best President ever. *lol*

    ReplyDelete
  43. -Shut-up with the nonsense. Orly is not the only person or attorney doing something.

    Did'nt say she was. Said she leads the fight because she has the most BALLS. YOU are the one that needs to PUT UP, OR SHUT UP..!

    -How many more fuck ups and misfilings will it take for you to see the light?

    The more incompetent she is, the more I admire her Courage (BALLS). And so would you if you weren't a do nothing INGRATE.

    -How much does Orly pay you to come here and defend her incompetent ass?

    Nothing. I gladly do it for FREE. Unlike you I did'nt vote for the Mother FKR. I KNEW he was a HOMMOCOMMY the moment I laid eyes on him.

    How much is he paying you to come on here and BASH her while you don't do shit..?

    -Then how comes it wasn't Orly but Farrar's (sp?) lawyer who brought a case that the judge didn't dismiss?

    Uhhh... Because the system is corrupt..!? If it was'nt for Orly's INCESANT STRUGGLE all this shit would be long forgotten you dip shit.

    -So according to your opinion the person who gets the most negative comments is doing the best job? Well, then Obama must be the best President ever. *lol*

    When the job is "Destroying the Republic". YES Glad you find it amussing.
    ALL THAT CUT DOWN ORLY ARE SHIT. AND PART OF THE PROBLEM.

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.