by Sharon Rondeau
(Oct. 28, 2024) — On Friday, October 18, Schuyler County, NY resident and registered voter Montgomery Blair Sibley argued to the five-member New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department that he “has a federal right to a president of the United States and commander-in-chief who is a natural born Citizen.”
The brief hearing stemmed from Sibley’s complaint against New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) Co-Executive Director Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky “solely in her official capacity as Co-Executive Director of the New York Board of Elections and New York’s Chief Election Official” on the grounds that 2024 Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris does not qualify as a “natural born Citizen.”
“Kamala Iyer Harris was born on Oct. 20, 1964, in Oakland, California and as such is a citizen of the United States,” the complaint reads (p. 3). “A copy of her Birth Certificate is attached hereto. However, neither Kamala Iyer Harris’ mother, Gopalan Shyamala, nor her father, Donald Jasper Harris were Citizens of the United States at the time of Kamala Iyer Harris’ birth. Upon information and belief, at the time of Kamala Iyer Harris’ birth both her parents were in the United States on temporary student visas, with the express condition that both were ‘non-immigrant students.’”
The U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, clause 5 stipulates that the president and commander-in-chief of the military be “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…,” the latter phrase consisting of the “grandfather clause” no longer applicable to anyone alive today.
Sibley opened his remarks to the justices by recounting that Schuyler County Supreme Court Judge Christopher P. Baker sua sponte dismissed his complaint without a hearing.
After he challenged Baker’s dismissal, the court clerk notified Sibley a hearing would be held on August 29, although it resulted in Baker’s simply affirming the order of dismissal. Sibley appealed to the higher court with a Motion to Expedite (6:06 in replay) given the short time remaining before the November 5 presidential election.
During his argument Sibley acknowledged the appellate court’s granting of the Motion but faulted Baker for his refusal to allow any argument on the matter in his courtroom.
“Justice Baker ruled that he did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear my claim because I had not complied with New York election law,” Sibley told the appellate justices, “and I said to the justice then, and I’m saying to you now, your law is inapplicable to my claim because I am coming in under the Ku Klux Klan Act enacted by Congress in 1871…”
“…the reason that 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act was passed was because state officials were refusing to recognize citizens’ federal rights,” Sibley continued. “Now my claim in this suit is that I have a federal right to a president of the United States and a commander-in-chief who is a ‘natural born Citizen.’ I may be right; I may be wrong, but I am allowed and required and this court is obligated to tell Justice Baker that I have a right to be heard on that issue in his court and he cannot bring New York State law in to bar me from [a] hearing.”
After the 4:00 mark, Sibley asked the justices to remand his complaint to Baker’s court to be heard.
When he stepped away from the dais, an attorney for the NYSBOE began his argument, which was that Sibley does not have “standing” under both state “election” law and “federal law.”
A citizen can file a challenge to a candidate’s eligibility, the attorney said, but Sibley should have “filed an objection” to begin the process. “He hasn’t alleged any violation of a personal or constitutional right; he’s only alleged a vague violation of a constitutional eligibility requirement,” he said.
Sibley lacks a “concrete, particularized injury,” an issue which he said the federal courts have “uniformly” dismissed, the attorney further claimed.
After the opposing attorney’s brief remarks, Sibley again took the podium to argue that the appellate division is “the wrong court” to hear the state’s argument on “standing” because his case involves a “state official I allege has an obligation imposed by the Constitution to not allow non-constitutionally-authorized actors to appear on the New York State ballot…”
The Post & Email has reached out to Sibley for comment.
First, let’s all readers herein over the years give Sharon Rondeau a hand of applause for exposing nbC-criminals, Obama and Kamala and “Canada Cruz” and others, EVERYDAY since 08-28-09!
Second, I encourage Montgomery Sibley, a modern day patriot, to show the NY Supreme Court the following inescapable observations of natural reality:
Thank you, Mr. Sibley
Sibley and many other Americans may have the requisite standing to contest her eligibility based on her tie breaking vote in the Senate on the Inflation Reduction Act. Many reports have claimed that the Inflation Reduction Act has increased costs for Americans on Medicare. If Sibley and other Americans are on Medicare and can demonstrate that their costs have increased as a direct result of the act, they could demonstrate the necessary standing to contest her eligibility in court.
Anyone who pays taxes should have standing to contest a candidate’s eligibility as their tax dollars pay for salary and other expenses associated with that office.
What’s really going to be interesting is if she wins is how Congress can certify the election of a candidate who clearly doesn’t meet Resolution 511? Congress specifically said in Resolution 511 that John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were US Citizens, neither of her parents were US Citizens at the time of her birth. Congress can’t have it both ways on the issue.