Appellate Court Affirms Harris “natural born Citizen” Dismissal

by Sharon Rondeau

(Nov. 1, 2024) — As The Post & Email reported earlier this week, on October 18 Schuyler County, NY registered voter and former attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley argued to the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, that a lower court shirked its constitutional obligation to hear oral argument on a complaint he filed in August when it simply dismissed it out-of-hand not once, but twice.

Sibley’s initial brief naming as defendant New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) Co-Executive Director Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky claims 2024 Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris is not constitutionally eligible to seek the office because she is not a “natural born Citizen,” as Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires.

Detailing the history of the “natural born” requirement reserved only for the presidency by the Founders and extended by the 12th Amendment to all vice-presidential candidates, Sibley concluded on page 6 that “the Article II, § 1 ‘natural born Citizen’ clause which only pertains to the requirement for holding the highest public office requires both parents to be U.S. Citizens at the time of birth. Thus, as a matter of law, Kamala Iyer Harris is ineligible to be President as neither of her parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of her birth.”

To the appellate court, Sibley argued that Judge Christopher P. Baker of the Supreme Court of Schuyler County erred when he acquiesced to Sibley’s appeal to reverse his order dismissing the case without a hearing, only to uphold it after convening a “hearing” on August 29.

Arguing Baker deprived him of his “federal rights” by foreclosing on his ability to put forth his case, Sibley asserted he is “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.”

On October 29 on his Substack, Sibley provided the appellate court’s opinion, issued per curiam on October 24, which concluded with:

Regardless of plaintiff commencing this as an action for declaratory judgment and characterizing the issue as a federal challenge that purportedly supersedes any state law, the effect of the relief sought by plaintiff is judicial intervention in the election process to remove Harris from the ballot based upon allegations that she does not meet the substantive requirements to hold the office of President of the United States…As this action is clearly an attempt by plaintiff to remove Harris from the ballot, plaintiff was required to pursue his challenge by way of a special proceeding pursuant to the Election Law, which requires commencement by verified petition or order to show cause and a directive by Supreme Court as to the manner of service (citations omitted). As plaintiff failed to avail himself of the applicable statutory procedures under the Election Law, Supreme Court properly determined that jurisdiction was lacking (citations omitted). Accordingly, the court’s dismissal of the complaint will not be disturbed. Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive
and without merit.

“What I find intellectually dishonest in the Appellate Division’s Order is the complete lack of acknowledgment of the federal law and SCOTUS opinions that demand the opposite result which I argued to the Court,” Sibley wrote in his post. “Again, I am ‘locked out’ of the Court. My remedy is now go [sic] the New York Court of Appeals, which I will do this week.”

As for the Petition for Writ of Certiorari submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court under Rule 22 requesting oral argument prior to the November 5 election, Sibley reported he received on October 28 a denial letter from court clerk Emily Walker with the explanation, “As stated previously, your case must first be reviewed by the highest state court in which a decision could be had,” with a citation to 28 USC 1257.