Update: Breaking: Sibley Eligiblity Case Filed with U.S. Supreme Court


by Sharon Rondeau

Judge John D. Bates is a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia who has been advised of alleged criminal tampering with government records and asked to order Obama to release original records to determine whether or not he meets the definition of “natural born Citizen”

(Dec. 26, 2012) — The Post & Email previously reported on several cases challenging the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as president filed by Montgomery Blair Sibley of Washington, DC, who was a write-in candidate in the 2012 presidential election.

In a press release issued on Tuesday, Sibley contended that Obama is “clearly panicked and desperate” after the two U.S. attorneys representing him attempted to quash a subpoena issued by Sibley to compel Obama to release his original birth records in the case Sibley vs. Alexander, Dinan and Lightfoot.

While Obama’s attorneys have objected to Sibley’s subpoenas for various documents pertaining to their client’s history, they did not block the release of information from the NARA.  A December 20, 2012 press release stated that after receiving requested information from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Sibley noted evidence of “alteration” of an August 7, 1961 date to read “August 1, 1961.”  In his “Emergency Second Motion” asking Judge John Bates to order the release of certain of Obama’s records, Sibley explained the alleged alteration as “prima facie evidence of of destruction of evidence related to Obama’s birth.”  He also noted that requested records for August 2 to August 7, 1961, which include Obama’s alleged birth date, were “missing.”

Judge Bates was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001 and dismissed a lawsuit filed by Valerie Plame and her husband, Joe Wilson, against the Bush administration.  Bates presides at the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC.

On April 27, 2011, the White House released what Obama claimed was a certified copy of his original Hawaii birth certificate.  Almost immediately, graphics experts and other analysts declared it a forgery.  A law enforcement investigation concluded that it was a “computer-generated forgery” at an initial press conference on March 1, 2012, along with Obama’s Selective Service registration card.  Lead investigator Michael Zullo has provided several sworn affidavits attesting to the posse’s findings.

Sibley, who had been a practicing attorney until several years ago, is acting pro se and had filed a motion requesting that the three electors in Washington, DC withhold their votes for Obama from the Electoral College vote on December 17 because of Obama’s lack of constitutional eligibility. Two U.S. attorneys representing the electors had responded that anyone born on U.S. soil is a “natural born Citizen.”

The members of the Electoral College met on the 17th as scheduled and cast their votes for Barack Obama despite numerous active challenges to his eligibility.  Obama claims he was born in Hawaii to an American mother and foreign-citizen father, bringing his status as a “natural born Citizen” into question.  Historically, the citizenship of the parents, or at least the father, had been considered a determining factor in a child’s citizenship.

Two U.S. attorneys representing Obama filed the Motion to Quash after Sibley filed a documentary subpoena to compel Obama to produce his original short-form and long-form certificates of birth.  Obama’s attorneys claimed that the seven subpoenas which Sibley had issued to obtain Obama’s records constituted a “vexatious use of the subpoena power” (page 3) and an “undue burden” on their client.

“He has spent more time and the people’s money fighting the production of these two pieces of paper than it would have taken him to walk over to the White House or the courthouse and show them to us,” Sibley said.  “It’s just absurd how much time he’s spent trying to prevent us from seeing the originals of what he says he’s given out.”

The attorneys representing the electors told The Post & Email that Sibley lacked “standing” to file the lawsuit, to which Sibley responded, “They keep raising the idea of standing.  Since the 1970s, the government has created is the idea that the government can do wrong, but only certain people can bring that wrongdoing to court.  In short, those people are the U.S. attorneys.  When you have the U.S. attorney and the president doing something wrong and only the U.S. attorney can bring the matter to court, obviously the government has created a perfect storm of being able to prevent being held accountable for its wrongdoing.”

When we asked Sibley how such a barrier could be overcome, he responded, “Regrettably, it takes someone with a lot of legal training to do what I’ve done.  Most people don’t understand what’s involved to serve in three separate states on six different government agencies.  The only answer is Congress.  Unless Congress wants to reel in what the Judicial and Executive have conspired to create, which is an unaccountable Executive and an unaccountable Judicial branch, we will be suffering the consequences of that tyranny.”

In their Motion to Quash Subpoenas, Obama’s attorneys claim that some of the subpoenas were “not properly served” but that “The United States has attempted to comply with the subpoenas that have been properly served” (page 5).  They also claim that Obama “released his birth certificate on April 27, 2011.”

The Post & Email asked Sibley of his next step, to which he responded, “It’s really no longer in my hands.  I said as much as Archibald Cox did in 1973 when he was trying to get the Nixon tapes.  At that moment, it came down to one judge.  Judge John Sirica had the fortitude to say, “No, you have to produce it; that’s a valid subpoena.”  So Nixon took it to the Supreme Court, which backed up Sirica, and ultimately Nixon resigned and 19 officials of the White House were convicted.  It’s a question now of whether Judge Bates is going to be a John Sirica and enforce the law against the highest office in the land, holding that no one is above the law, or whether he’s going to duck.”

In the Watergate case, the U.S. Supreme Court “ruled unanimously that a President cannot withhold evidence in a criminal case.”  Forgery is described by one law firm as “the act of spuriously, falsely, and knowingly presenting an item, product, or service with the intent to deceive. The scope forgery is a vast one. Forgery can include the production of falsified documents…”

Sibley continued:

The people have lost control of their government because now the government can do what it wants; they can hide evidence of wrongdoing.  We’re not allowed to go to the grand jury; I’ve been threatened with a criminal offense if I take this evidence to the grand jury directly because the executive branch or judicial branch has created a new law that contravenes Congress’s expressed statement that I am allowed to go to the grand jury.  But they said, “No, you can’t, and if you do, it’s a criminal offense.”

The Fifth Amendment provides for the review of evidence before a criminal defendant can be charged with a crime.  Sibley told The Post & Email that “the grand jury’s function is much greater than that; its function is to investigate government wrongdoing generally.  Because the U.S. attorney has taken complete control over the grand jury and they’re not told that they can tell the U.S. attorney to leave the room so that they can conduct their own investigation, they’re just captive to a situation they don’t understand.”

The Post & Email has covered the erosion of the role and capability of the grand jury in its extensive reporting of the cases involving Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.).  Fitzpatrick has reported grand jury obstruction on the county and federal levels and was recently told by the McMinn County grand jury that it could not review evidence of fraud from the 2012 presidential election.  When challenged, the McMinn County grand jury foreman could not affirm that the grand jury was functioning legally.  Fitzpatrick has demonstrated that grand juries in Tennessee are controlled and even constructed by the judges, who flagrantly flout state law and defendants’ constitutional rights.  Undue influence of prosecutors on grand jury members has been reported and is allegedly under investigation by the state attorney general’s office.

Sibley stated that the U.S. attorney’s failure to bring the issue to the grand jury is a felony under the U.S. Code and has filed his case with the U.S. Supreme Court.

I’ve brought that very issue to the U.S. Supreme Court for consideration on January 4.  I said, “There’s a statute that says that if I present evidence to the U.S. attorney, he shall present it to the grand jury.  When I presented the evidence, the U.S. attorney said, ‘No; ‘”shall’ means “may,” and I’ve decided I’m not going to.'”  And the court says, “No, you don’t have to present it, but there’s a congressional statute that says “yes.”  The word is “shall.”

We asked Mr. Sibley why he thought Obama’s attorneys are claiming that producing the documents requested is an “undue burden,” to which he responded:

Because there’s no other reason not to produce these documents.  In their pleading, they say, “We produced copies,” but I said, “But the copies are suspect and perhaps forgeries.  We need to see the originals.”  But they say it’s too burdensome to produce two pieces of paper.  They’ll spend thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars to prevent producing two pieces of paper which a courier could deliver in the space of an hour.  It’s inanity; it’s just inanity.

“What happened with the other subpoenas that you served?”

Harvard, Columbia and Occidental College all hired big law firms to file objections to the subpoenas.  Those objections are being fought through the courts, and this is where the U.S. attorney has come in on behalf of Mr. Obama and asked that all subpoenas be quashed here in DC so that they aren’t litigated in Massachusetts, California and New York.

Do they have the authority to do that?

Sure, because a judge can quash a subpoena issued out of a court, and all of the subpoenas were issued out of a DC court, as the lawsuit was filed there.

In late October, Atty. Orly Taitz had subpoenaed Obama’s records from Occidental College.  During a subsequent hearing, one of the attorneys representing Occidental had stated, “Courts don’t like to rule on things that don’t exist.”

“This is where you have to drill,” Sibley told us.  “Because then you get into the question of why they have everyone else’s records from a given year but not his, and why are his missing?  Then you can begin uncovering the layers of what is going on here.”

The Post & Email asked, “Do you have an opinion about what is going on?” to which he responded, “Something is going on, and we deserve to know the answer, so that the people can control their government and not the other way around.”

Regarding the claim of “privacy” over Obama’s college records, Sibley believes that it amounts to “smoke and mirrors.”  We expect to receive his filing with the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday evening or Thursday morning.

Sibley has published a book on what he sees as the destruction of the judicial system which can be downloaded or purchased.

Update, December 27, 2012, 3:38 p.m. EST:  The U.S. Supreme Court has docketed Sibley’s petition and indicates that it has been “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 4, 2013.”

3 Responses to "Update: Breaking: Sibley Eligiblity Case Filed with U.S. Supreme Court"

  1. Robert Laity   Saturday, December 29, 2012 at 6:58 AM

    Zeb, Obama has never been “the POTUS”. He was DQ’d from the onset of his Faux “administration.

    The “Presentment” is still in existence. The Fifth Amendment has not been repealed. It was not in “1970s” that the Court first thought that they were excluded from the “Presenttment” process,otherwise known as a Non-Judicially convened Citizens Inquiry. In 1946 errant rulemakers for the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure called the “Presentment” “Obsolete”. It was ubiquitously used before then and is still PART of the Fifth Amendment needing only to be dusted off and used.

    In Miranda v Arizona,the Supreme Court ruled that “there can be NO rulemaking,legislation…that would Abrogate a RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution”. The Right to empanel citizen “Presentment” panels still exists.

  2. meyerlm   Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 5:47 PM

    “HOUSTON, We have a problem!!!”

  3. "Zeb"   Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 9:46 AM

    The writ of habeas corpus is the very basis of the American jurisprudence system. The Constitution specifically states that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended. Lincoln set the precedence for suspending the writ of habeas corpus after he attacked the southern states. And we found that to be true when a writ of habeas corpus was processed for Fitz at the state and federal level. Neither was addressed nor were they responded to.

    The judiciary operates outside the bounds of the Constitution and the laws created from it; responding only to, what appears to be, how they feel, i.e if it feels good they do it.

    This is the cold face of tyranny. And this is where the treasonous acts of the POTUS are coming from.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.