Friday, June 10, 2016

Sibley v. American Bar Association; Your questions answered

I am soon to make a statement to the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity ( NACIQI.)

Several People, (I assume they are People but they may be clever and annoying Bots) have asked me basically the following question:
 Does the data you claim to possess still affect this election? You have found the time to publish lengthy posts here that we have all been eager to read... surely you can summon the will to post a simple reply of yes or no. 

O.K. Yes.  And here is why.  The Presidential Election is going to end up in Congress under Article XII which states in sum and substance that: "The 12th Amendment to the Constitution requires that candidates for President and Vice President receive a majority of electoral votes (currently 270 or more of a total of 538) to be elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the President is elected by the House of Representatives, and the Vice President is elected by the Senate. This process is referred to as contingent election.

The legitimacy of Congress given what the records of the D.C. Madam reveal will make their decision suspect if I am not allowed to release and comment on the records I possess.

I hope that answers your question.  But these things take time and finesse and I am still waiting on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.


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 clamoring that I release records in possible violation of a court order, I simply 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.