Appellate Court Reverses and Remands Lower Court’s Action in Maryland Case Alleging Obama Identity Fraud

NEXT STEP:  PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

by Sharon Rondeau

(May 10, 2016) — Former Washington, DC-area attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley reported on his blog on Tuesday that a three-judge panel of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued an April 28 opinion reversing a lower court’s ruling stating that Sibley was not entitled to a written declaration of his rights following an adverse ruling.

The case originally arose in July 2014 when Sibley petitioned Bryan Roslund of the Montgomery County, MD State Attorney’s Office, Special Prosecutions Unit, to appear before the Montgomery County grand jury to submit evidence that White House occupant Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) is using “a fictitious or fraudulently altered government identification document” in violation of Maryland Code CL 8-303.

The referenced criminal law reads:

(a)   In this section, “government identification document” means one of the following documents issued by the United States government or any state or local government:

(1)   a passport;

(2)   an immigration visa;

(3)   an alien registration card;

(4)   an employment authorization card;

(5)   a birth certificate;

(6)   a Social Security card;

(7)   a military identification;

(8)   an adoption decree;

(9)   a marriage license;

(10)   a driver’s license; or

(11)   a photo identification card.

(b)   A person may not, with fraudulent intent:

(1)   possess a fictitious or fraudulently altered government identification document;

(2)   display, cause, or allow to be displayed a fictitious or fraudulently altered government identification document;

(3)   lend a government identification document to another or knowingly allow the use of the person’s government identification document by another; or

(4)   display or represent as the person’s own a government identification document not issued to the person.

(c)   A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $500 or both.

Appearing only in the Fifth Amendment, the grand jury was tasked by America’s Founding Fathers to examine, without bias, evidence of a crime alleged to have been committed within the county or jurisdiction. Over the years, grand juries have lost their independence and the will to issue indictments, or “True Bills,” against public officials if the evidence supports it.

Many have argued that the grand jury has now become an arm of the Judicial Branch of government. As The Post & Email has reported over more than six years, county grand jury’s in the state of Tennessee have been completely overtaken by criminal court judges who have been appointing grand jury foremen from personal acquaintance and outside of the jury pool for at least a century.

Between September 2009 and March 2014, Tennessee citizen Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III attempted on numerous occasions to approach the Monroe County and McMinn County, TN grand juries, respectively, with what he believed was compelling evidence of criminality on the part of judges, prosecutors, court clerks, sheriffs, grand jury foremen, defense attorneys, and sheriff’s deputies to deprive citizens of their right to constitutional process when accused of a crime.

Fitzpatrick initially asked the Monroe County grand jury to examine documents he submitted accusing Obama of treason as an “imposter president.”

On the last occasion, March 18, 2014, Fitzpatrick was sitting on a bench outside of the grand jury room awaiting a disposition on his request to address the grand jury when the same entity indicted him for several crimes, ultimately resulting in a three-year prison sentence for convictions on “aggravated perjury” and “extortion.”  During his sentencing hearing, Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood termed Fitzpatrick “a moral coward” and was hear to clearly say, “Who Cares If the Grand Jury Foreman is Serving Illegally?”

In March 2012, a criminal investigative team, the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse, publicly declared that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are “computer-generated forgeries.” An earlier image, a Certification of Life Birth, or COLB, was first published at The Daily KOS in June 2008.  The image was then posted by the Obama campaign at the “FigththeSmears” website and has since appeared in several different color schemes, including on the White House website in 2011 following the release of the long-form image.

Neither image appears to bear an official government seal.

In a 2013 civil suit filed in Alabama by Atty. Larry Klayman challenging the secretary of state’s alleged failure to vet presidential candidates in 2012, Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo submitted a 57-page affidavit detailing the anomalies in Obama’s proffered documentation and Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio’s appeal to Congress to launch its own investigation of the reported forgeries.

Alabama Zullo Affidavit Final.2

An excerpt from page 43 of Zullo’s affidavit reads:

On September 25, 2014, the unnamed grand jury foreman sent Sibley a letter stating:

In October 2014, Sibley filed a complaint “seeking a declaratory decree” of his rights to present evidence to the grand jury after having approached a magistrate and the State’s Attorney, as is customary in Maryland.  In his complaint, Sibley claimed that Roslund had unduly influenced the foreman by expressing his personal opinion that Sibley was a “birther lunatic.”

Footnote 5 on page 9 of the appellate court’s opinion states:

As the grand jury foreman remained unidentified through Sibley’s various actions, Sibley has referred to him or her as “John Doe Defendant” but has sought the court’s assistance in order to learn his identity.

The term “birther” was coined by those ridiculing a person or group of persons who questions the constitutional eligibility of Obama and other individuals to serve as president and commander-in-chief based on the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, clause 5, which requires the nation’s chief executive to be a “natural born Citizen.”

A docket sheet containing activity in Sibley’s Maryland case through June 22, 2015 can be found here.  On January 22, 2015, the Circuit Court dismissed Sibley’s case without prejudice.

In February of this year, Sibley appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals to “reverse and remand this matter with illumination of the legal issues raised herein for the lower court’s guidance,” having argued that if the lower court decision were to stand, it “would confirm the acceptability of the status quo and continue the erosion of the Common Law authority and independence of the Grand Jury. Such a result can only be viewed as an absolute coup d’etat upon the Grand Jury’s Common Law prerogatives by this Court.”

In its April 28 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals reduced the five points Sibley expressed in his appellate brief to two, granting the first seeking “a written declaration of the parties’ rights” but denying the second, which asked if the lower court had abused its authority.  The Court additionally found that Sibley “does not have the right to appear in person before the foreman” [of the grand jury].

While the appeals court maintained that the circuit court “did not err in granting the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Declaratory Relief,” it agreed that the circuit court should have issued “a formal declaration of the appellant’s rights.”

When The Post & Email asked Sibley what his next steps might be given the higher court’s partial reversal, he responded:

The Circuit Court must now issue a ruling based upon the guidance from the Special Court of Appeals.  However, that guidance is incomplete and leaves room open for interpretation so who knows what will happen next.  However, I am not waiting and will be filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeal by week’s end.

If I ever do get before a grand jury, I have more than enough to persuade them to issue subpoenas for original BHO documents.

The Post & Email has noted on a myriad of occasions that no elected or appointed public servant other than Arpaio has exhibited a willingness to examine the evidence that Obama’s only publicly-available documentation is fraudulent. In similar fashion, the mainstream media has failed to include in its reports of Sibley’s and others’ efforts to arrive at the truth the fact that a four-year criminal investigation, which is still ongoing, has not only found the documents to be forgeries, but also reportedly discovered who created them.