U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Grant Hearings on Eligibility Cases


by Sharon Rondeau

The U.S. Supreme Court has failed to hear any case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility claiming that he is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution

(Jan. 8, 2013) — The U.S. Supreme Court has denied two requests for a review of the constitutional qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama after having scheduled the petitions for a conference on January 4, 2013.

The petition filed by Montgomery Blair Sibley asked the three electors from the District of Columbia to refrain from casting their votes for Barack Hussein Obama on December 17, 2012 on the grounds that he is ineligible to hold the office. In the case, Sibley v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, Sibley also challenged the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress applying to the District which states that presidential electors must vote for the person who allegedly won the popular vote.

The case was appealed from the Superior Court to the D.C. Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Sibley had issued a subpoena to Obama to compel him to produce his original short-form and long-form birth certificates because the authenticity of the images presented on the internet is in question.  In March of last year and again in July, a law enforcement investigation publicly announced that Obama’s long-form “Certificate of Live Birth” and his Selective Service registration form were “computer-generated forgeries.”

Sibley has also questioned whether or not Obama’s Social Security number is valid and why Obama has refused to release any of his school or college records.  He has two other active cases challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility and was a write-in candidate for president in 2012.  He represents himself in all three matters.  A fourth case, which has been awaiting a decision from U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito for five years,

A Petition for Rehearing submitted by presidential candidate Cody Robert Judy challenging Obama’s eligibility and seeking a Writ of Certiorari was also denied. Mr. Judy observed that Congress changed the date for certifying the Electoral College votes to January 4, the same day on which his petition was scheduled for conference.  Normally the date is January 6, but because it fell on a  Sunday this year, it had to be changed by congressional act.  Judy commented that normally the date would be later than January 6 rather than earlier.

Judy’s case had begun in Georgia with Atty. Orly Taitz, but he had proceeded pro se after the Georgia court did not allow Taitz to continue to represent him and other plaintiffs pro hac vice.

Judy had challenged both Obama’s and McCain’s eligibility in 2008, was a presidential candidate in 2012 and has announced that he will seek the presidency in 2016. Both Sibley and Judy contend that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

About the ruling, he said, “It makes me feel bad because they wouldn’t even hear it and in doing so they have basically, well, officially squashed the “natural born citizen” qualification for President in the Constitution without a word or hearing.”

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: National

10 Responses to U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Grant Hearings on Eligibility Cases

  1. Bob1939

    Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 1:09 PM

    A noteworthy quote from Saint Augustine of Hippo…“Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.” TO ALL PERPETRATORS – THERE WILL BE A PRICE YOU WILL PAY FOR YOUR CRIMES.

  2. gigclick

    Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 11:17 AM

    The dictatorship is now fully installed and protected by the judicial!

  3. Loggia

    Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 10:29 AM

    That means the USA is now officially (though usurpatively) “Shariah Compliant.”

  4. The Obama Timeline author

    Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 10:26 AM

    No surprises here. When the Court refused to hear Kirchner v. Obama we knew the fix was in. It takes four justices to agree to hear the case for it to be presented to the full court. that means we have three (or fewer) Justices who care about the U.S. Constitution. Sad indeed.

  5. 2discern

    Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 9:32 AM

    CONgress is a cesspool of corruption. The FED agencies of law enforcement are a scam. The courts are judicial disaster areas. So, what authority is left to prosecute the criminal-in-chief? WE THE PEOPLE! The last bastion of hope for a free Republic.

  6. Martha Trowbridge

    Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 9:04 AM

    Let’s view this Supreme Court ‘decision’ from this perspective: THEY REFUSED HEARINGS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WOULD TRIUMPH.

    This makes all who refused to hear the cases guilty of High Treason.

    Here’s how we proceed: Openly seeking God’s Assistance, We The People build a comprehensive case of [1] all Judicial insults to The United States Constitution on this matter [2] all cases of legislators refusing to address this matter. Our case must include plaintiffs, topics, ‘decisions’, Judges, venue, dates.

    In addition, we compile a detailed list of all United States Constitutional violations by “Obama”, his Administration, and Congress. This must feature acts of OMISSION as well as commission.

    An interpretation by various experts will then be made.

    When this work is completed, we publicize it. Extensively, nationally. Not just on the web – which so far has been our main venue – but everywhere – door to door, malls, local newspaper editorials, speaking engagements at local libraries, etc, house parties, etc.

    We get a quorum of millions of Patriots, all ages, all backgrounds.

    We The People then stand together, in one united front, to take Constitutional Remedies to redress our grievances.

    For we’ve got remedies!

    The trouble is [1] we have not openly enlisted the Aid Of God in our efforts [2] we’ve been foolishly waiting for four years for corrupt, weak others to rescue and protect us [3] the everyday American is totally UNAWARE of what’s been going on.

    God will be with us. America is His.

  7. OPOVV

    Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 1:57 AM

    Upon finding that Chief Justice Roberts had hundreds of millions of dollars in the Vatican Slush Fund bank account, he didn’t earn that money saving his government paycheck.
    No, it earned it the old fashion way: he took a bribe.
    He also administered Obama his so called “Oath of Office” on the Quran in the private swearing-in session in the White House on Jan 20, 2009, but you knew that, I knew that, the press knew that, and every other person in every other country knew that, but our very own Obots hadn’t a clue, and to this day remain clueless, completely in denial, reminiscent of “Oh, aren’t they accommodating, they’re giving us showers”.
    Respect for the Law? What Law?

  8. Loggia

    Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 10:40 PM

    In our system of Checks and Balances, the branch most responsive to the PEOPLE is the Legislative.

    While the Supreme Court decision is regrettable, as it leaves the impression that the Constitution is a fluid and fickle document, it certainly does not mean the issue of Usurpation and Ineligibility is moot.

    First of all, are there not more cases still open?

    Criminal prosecution is a possibility one would assume.

    Congresspeople need to hear en masse from the electorate which feels it has been disenfranchised.

    When the topic “numero uno” is unavoidable due to sheer volume of inquiry and complaint, Congress will have to devise some creative way of dealing with it.

    Surely, the assertion of the Egyptian newspaper that the Obama administration has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and that their influence is ample, should be cause enough to awaken the Sleeping Giant of Liberty loving citizens.

    Perhaps, the lesson to draw from this all is that free people MUST BE proactive in protecting their liberty. Although the recent California and Supreme Court decisions are frustrating, they may be the clarion call for an American “Great Awakening.”

  9. gigclick

    Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 10:11 PM

    This all goes back a short time when orly was in the case with judge carter in california representing military members. At the top of the case docket were hillary,biden,pelosi,reid,michelle and hillary demanded that the judge label the case as having “a no standing rule” meaning that any cases against obama/pelosi should now be ignored for treason/eligibility/ss number/cob long form/identity fraud/perjury/election fraud/murder/money laundering/misuse of taxpayers funds/sabotage of potus,etc.,to name a few. So,nothing has changed and now.the judicial has given themselves full authority over the constitution and to obfuscate any of its written meanings. At this point, good attorneys may have no effect on any attempt to call violations if the judicial orders anything on their menu of misprision of felony since they control the laws and decisions. There may be some attorneys out there that can come up with something but most seem to have taken their best shot and were laughed at by the judges or bari’s government sham lawyers.

  10. meyerlm

    Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 8:57 PM


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>