Friday, May 13, 2016

Sibley v. Caesar

The Judicial Caesars at the Circuit Court of Appeal have answered  my Petition to order the District Court Clerk to file my pleading seeking persmission to release some of the records of the D.C. Madam.  In toto, they said: "ORDERED that the petition be denied. Petitioner has not shown a "clear and indisputable" right to mandamus relief. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988).

I have responded by filing a pleading demanding that they explain how I can be ordered not to release records and yet not have the ability to file a request to be released from that order. 

Entitled, Petitioner’s Motion for Articulation of the Ratio Decendi for Denying Petition, the Motion stated in sum: "Therefore, a written decision with intellectual honesty explaining why Sibley’s Petition was denied in this matter is required from this Court if it is to discharge its Article III duty and maintain public confidence in the ability to faithfully discharge the heavy duty the People have placed upon this Court."

For those of you who keep clammering that I release records in possible violation of a court order, I saimply quote Theodore Roosevelt:  

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”


Tuesday, May 10, 2016

The Fat Lady is Still Singing

Maryland Court Revives Suit by 'Birther' Sibley

While I am waiting for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to make their next move in the D.C. Madam matter, I thought it appropriate to note that the Maryland Special Court of Appeals has reversed the dismissal of my lawsuit seeking acess to the Montgomery County Grand Jury to present evidence regarding the questionable nature of the identity documents of Mr. Obama.

The full article can be read here and the actual opinion here.

So I guess this litigation arc seeking access to court and grand jury to address legitmate concerns is not quite done, yet.


Tuesday, May 3, 2016

My next steps . . .

Yesterday, the Supreme Court docketed the denial of my Application.  They gave no reason for the denial of my request to review the refusal of the District Court Clerk to file my Motions for Modification of the Restraining Order which I believe prevents me from releasing information relevant to the present election cycle.

So now what is my next step?  Torn as I am that I should not be gagged from First Amendment political speech by a restraining order that I am being denied the opportunity to even asked to be dissolved, I am a Doctor of Laws and cannot flaunt the Court's authority easily.  Hence, I will continue to press Obama Supreme Court nominee Chief Judge Garland of the D.C. Circuit Court to expedite the resolution of the Petition I placed before him on March  9, 2016. 

Chief Judge Garland and I have tangled before which is why I believe he is hoping I will release the records so I can be arrested for criminal contempt of court.  That most certainly would silence me as there are no keyboards or Internet in jail. Notably, the underlying determination of what Chief Judge Garland has permitted on his watch is deemed "confidential" under Rule 23 and thus sealed from public view.  Of course, Chief Judge Garland has the authority under Rule 23(a) to: "disclose the existence of a proceeding under these Rules when necessary or appropriate to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary’s ability to redress misconduct or disability."  How about it Chief Judge Garland?  Will you release the existence of the proceeding I initiated so the public confidence can be restored?  I thought not.

My "confidence" is shaken in the Judiciary's ability to redress misconduct.  How about your confidence?  And how convenient for the nominee to the bench of the unaccountable, non-elected, super-legislature running our Country to keep his misconduct in the shadows.