Amo Probos

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:43:00 +0000

(In respect of Black History Month, I thought I would re-post a blog of mine from 2009 which I think appropriate to this month.)

I guess I get my social activism in part from my grandmother, Mrs. Harper Sibley (pictured at right). In 1946, allied with Paul Robeson and the American Crusade to End Lynching she took a courageous stand against what now seems unreal -- the regularly lynching of Americans of African descent and the federal government's refusal to intervene. The full story is reported in Albert Einstein's FBI file, but the salient parts follow . . .

When his illness prevented him from attending the Washington anti-lynching rally, Einstein sent a letter to be delivered to the President by Robeson and the other ACEL leaders, but in view of what occurred at the White House, it's uncertain that Einstein's letter was ever handed to Truman.
After the rally, which drew some 3,000 protesters, a multi-racial delegation, including Robeson, Rabbi Irving Miller of the American Jewish Congress and Mrs. Harper Sibley, president of the United Council of Church Women and wife of the former president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, met with Truman in the Oval Office. The gentlest term that might describe their meeting is confrontational. The following exchange emerges from a variety of newspaper accounts, the most detailed in the African American press: Almost as soon as Robeson began reading the group's statement calling for immediate Executive action to stop the lynch mobs, the President interrupted: The timing was not yet right for an anti-lynching law, he said, and the delegation ought to appreciate the fact that America and Great Britain were "the last refuge of freedom in the world." Somewhat less than appreciative, Robeson answered that Britain was one of the world's "great enslavers of human beings." Truman insisted that the moment was not propitious for a forthright statement from the Chief Executive, according to a report in the leading black weekly, the Chicago Defender, which added:

In terms which left no doubt in the minds of the delegation from the American Crusade to End Lynching, President Truman today emphatically refused to take the initiative to end mob violence and the spread of terrorism in America.[declaring] the whole question of lynching and mob violence was one to be dealt with in political terms and strategy and patience must attend the final solution.

When Mrs. Sibley made a comparison between fascism against the Jews in Europe and fascism in America as levied against Negroes, the President showed impatience and a flare of temper.

Robeson said returning [black] veterans are showing signs of restiveness and indicated that they are determined to get the justice here they have fought for abroad. Robeson warned that this restiveness might produce an emergency situation which would require Federal intervention. The President, shaking his fist, stated this sounded like a threat.

Robeson's implied ultimatum that if the government would not provide protection, black people would defend themselves was, apparently, too much for Truman who promptly ended the meeting. (Robeson later told the press that his remarks were "not a threat, merely a statement of fact about the temper the Negro people.")

The ACEL delegation left the White House without having presented their complete statement-or Einstein's letter. Nonetheless, Truman or his aides had to have known about the letter. A copy had been mailed to the White House, and it had been quoted in the previous day's New York Times:

The delegation will deliver to Mr. Truman a letter from Dr. Albert Einstein stating that security against lynching is "one of the most urgent tasks of our generation. "In the conviction that the overwhelming majority of the people favor security for all against illegal violence," Dr. Einstein wrote: "There is always a way to overcome legal obstacles whenever there is an inflexible will at work in the service of so just a cause."

Although Robeson and the other organizers had hoped for a much larger turnout, the ACEL contributed to the growing movement for anti-lynching legislation. The protest rally received extensive media coverage: the N.Y. Times and Washington Post both headlined their stories with Robeson's implied ultimatum that the government must act to end lynching "Or Negroes Will." The African American press, on the other hand, emphasized Truman's weakness: The Chicago Defender headlined its story, "Truman Balks at Lynch Action" and the Baltimore Afro-American proclaimed: "Robeson Proves Ability to Handle Situation." The anti-lynching protest and the publicity seemed to spur the NAACP to intensify its own efforts against "Mob Violence." Refusing to work with Reds like Robeson, the NAACP had boycotted the ACEL protest, but afterwards accelerated a separate, more subdued lobbying effort-including a more cordial meeting with Truman and other top Washington officials.

Despite its ambitious name, the American Crusade to End Lynching was essentially a one-protest organization and ceased activity after its Washington demonstration. But it was a vital part of the ongoing tradition of confrontational struggle-as opposed to total reliance on legal suits and appeals-for civil rights in America. It would be another ten years before Rosa Parks and other working women of Montgomery took on that town's segregated buses and several more years before tens of thousands of young people joined in mass anti-racist actions, but in 1946 the rumblings had begun that would erupt into the civil rights movement of the 1960's.

That's was my grandmother!!

While Rome burns . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:44:00 +0000

After waiting 40 days for Judge Bates to rule upon my Petition for Quo Warranto, I am waiting no longer. I believe that the issues raised in my Petition -- what is the definition of "natural born Citizen" and has Obama committed wire fraud -- are publici juris of the first order and thus demand immediate judicial attention.

As such, today I have filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus Or, Alternatively, for Writ Procedendum Ad Justicium to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This petition requests the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to order Judge Bates to rule – one way or another – on my Quo Warranto Petition so that the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court can review that decision. My last case with Judge Bates took 270 days to resolve – a time frame that would put his decision after the November 6, 2012, election and thereby deny appellate and Supreme Court review of the important issues raised in my Quo Warranto Petition.

I suppose it will be another 40 days in the desert for me while I wait for the Court of Appeals to respond.

Obama’s Felony Wire Fraud to go to Grand Jury

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:18:00 +0000

Coming on the heels of the sworn testimony taken in the Georgia Administrative Law hearing at which expert witnesses testified under oath as to the indications of forgery in Barack Obama’s putative certificates of live birth, I have amended my Quo Warranto lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to demand that the Court enforce 18 U.S.C. §3332. That section requires, upon request of a citizen, that the United States Attorney present information concerning such an alleged offense to the grand jury.

On January 12, 2012, I made such a request. In so much as the United States Attorney has refused to acknowledge the request, I have now moved for a writ of mandamus from the Court to compel U.S. Attorney Machen, Jr., to comply with §3332.

Though several individuals have requested state police and/or the F.B.I. to investigate Obama’s putative COLBs, this is the first instance where an individual has invoked 18 U.S.C. §3332 to remove the matter from the discretion of the politically-influenced Department of Justice. Instead, I am taking the allegations of Obama’s wire fraud directly to a federal Grand Jury which has the unfettered power to indict Obama if it finds “there is sufficient evidence of probable cause to justify bringing the accused to trial.”

In this instance, in the Court pleadings I have alleged that Obama may have violated a Federal criminal law, to wit, 18 U.S.C. §1343, “Fraud by wire, radio, or television”. That statute makes it a Federal felony offense to: “having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice.”

I allege in the Court case that the particular event which may constitute wire fraud is Obama’s posting on the Internet at whitehouse.gov of the his putative “Certificate of Live Birth” on April 27, 2011.

Citing not only the evidence attached to the First Amended Complaint, I also now have required the assigned Judge – John D. Bates – to take judicial notice of the proceedings in the Georgia Administrative Law matter. In that Georgia case, two expert document examiners testified under oath on January 27, 2012, that the certificates of live birth released by Obama appear to be forgeries.

The ball is now in the Court of the Honorable John D. Bates who must decide whether to enforce the law or allow the questions of: (i) Obama’s eligibility to be President and (ii) his alleged criminal behavior to be shielded from determination by his judicial inaction on these questions.

Obama Ignores Georgia Subpoena

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:17:00 +0000

Though it has garnered little national press attention, there is a trio of petitions in a Georgia Administrative Law court challenging Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot in that state given -- by his own admission -- his lack of "natural born Citizen" status as required by Article II, section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Yesterday, an evidentiary hearing was held in Georgia on that question and neither Obama, ignoring a subpoena, nor his attorney appeared. The hearing proceeded and evidence was adduced. The administrative law judge has reserved decision and will at a later date issue his ruling.

What was interesting was the proof presented at the hearing by the petitioners. An unofficial report of what transpired at the hearing is available here. In sum, it demonstrates that at least two document experts are of the opinion that Obama's publicly released certificates of live birth are forgeries.

This is, of course, what I have alleged as well. It is nice to know that I am not the only one who thinks that way and believes that no one -- not even the President -- is above the law. One of my favorite quotes: “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 220, 261 (1882).

Playing the War Pipes for Occupy DC

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:31:00 +0000

There is a curious collection of people living at McPherson Square in DC which has been given the name “Occupy DC”. On New Year’s Eve, I determined to take a stroll on an unusually warm night down Massachusetts Avenue to DuPont Circle then down to the the White House. Once there, around 7:30 p.m., I serenaded the President from the north side of Lafayette Park. In case you are interested, I played “Going Home”.

I then walked the few blocks to McPherson Square as I hoped a bagpiped version of Aud Lange Syne would be well received by those I may not agree with but certainly respect. As I got to the middle of the park, there was a meeting going on which evidenced respectful passion on both sides. Not wanting to disturb the meeting, I continued to the north side of the Park to exit onto “K” street to catch the shuttle to Georgetown where I wanted to play on the Potomac and along the Canal. The echos in there are great.

But as I tried to leave McPherson square I was approached by several who wanted me to play so I relented and played Scotland the Brave, Green Hills of Tyrol and of course, Aud Lange Syne. This prompted a response from the meeting group who complained that my sound was disrupting their meeting. What happened next was very Quaker like. A consensus was quickly reached that I could play one more and the meeting could continue. Democracy in action. Maybe Congress should spend a month living in tents on the Mall. I am sure it would help the process if they were forced to get along.

I played “Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow” and then caught the shuttle to Georgetown.

Flank Attacks

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:58:00 +0000

I am not alone in raising a legal challenge to the eligibility of Obama to be President of the United States due to his lack of the requisite "natural born Citizen" status given his Father's British nationality.

In Georgia, a state administrative law judge is entertaining a challenge based upon that same ground. That case is set for a hearing on January 26, 2012. One of the plaintiffs in that case has subpoenaed Obama to testify at the hearing and the administrative law judge has denied Obama's motion to quash that subpoena. That suit has many appellate levels to transit through before any sort of decision would become final.

What I find curious is the procedural and substantive defenses that Obama's attorneys are raising -- and failing to raise. Procedurally, as the order denying the motion to quash the subpoena relates, Obama's counsel failed to cite any legal authority for the position that Obama was too "busy" to attend a hearing. Even first year law students know that attorneys have to give judges some legal basis to support the relief they request. Moreover, Obama's attorneys have failed to raise the significant issue of "federal preemption" which would eliminate Georgia's jurisdiction over the question of Obama's eligibility. The legal doctrine of federal preemption flows from the supremacy clause of the Constitution which makes federal law the supreme law of the land. In federal officer eligibility matters, Congress, by enacting the D.C. Code section under which my law suit travels, has arguably "preempted" state law on that question.

Substantively, Obama's attorneys have raised the remarkably inane argument that by the majority of citizen's electing Obama in 2008, there has been a de facto amendment to the Constitution's "natural born Citizen" clause by the people stating: "further the citizenship issue plaintiff seeks to raise was soundly rejected by 69,456,897 Americans in the 2008 elections.” . Unfortunately for Obama, that was not one of the methods the Framers of our federal system chose to amend our Constitution, so no judge would credit such a bizarre argument.

Kill the Messenger so you don't have to hear the Message

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:54:00 +0000

Mahatma Ghandi's is reported to have said, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

Here, "they" could not ignore me given the extensive press coverage my campaign announcement and the filing of my lawsuit against Obama has received. Hence, it is resort to the ad hominem argument in an attempt to get people to ignore what I am saying upon the premise that I have solely base motives of personal gain. Let me explain.

The media response to my press release has uniformly mis-stated the fact that: "Sibley will also not accept contributions for his campaign. He is instead asking supporters to buy his D.C. Madam book “Why Just Her.” While it is true that I will not accept campaign contributions, nowhere in my press release or campaign website do I mention my book Why Just Her about the D.C. Madam. (Indeed, talks are underway for Susan Lucci to play Jeane in a movie version which would finally allow the full story behind Jeane's life and death to be told through a docudrama format.)

Instead, I do mention my book the Justicide Brief stating that if anyone wants to help defray the cost of my campaign, they could buy a copy. (The Justicide Brief -- after tracing the growth of justice from the Magna Charta to the U.S. Constitutions, asserts that justice has been killed by the very forces sworn to protect it.)

Yet ignored by the media is that on the same page, I offer to give the Justicide Brief away for Free! If my motive for running for President and suing Obama about his eligibility to be President was simply to make money selling the Justicide Brief, why then am I giving it away for free?

More importantly, why this pervasive disinformation campaign? My answer: I have Obama cornered by my lawsuit and his camp -- along with its compliant mass media -- is resorting to any means possible to stop the inevitable judicial resolution of the seminal question I raise: Is Obama a "natural born Citizen" as the Constitution requires or have we as citizens lost the right to require our government to follow the law upon which it was formed?

I Announce Write-In Candidacy for President of the United States and file Quo Warranto suit challenging Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:00:00 +0000

I, Montgomery Blair Sibley, scion of the Blair Family whose ancestors first called the anti-slavery Republican Party to order at its preliminary convention at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in February 1856, represented Dred Scott and from whence the Blair House gets its name, announce the commencement of my campaign as a Write-In Candidate for President of the United States. Quixotic as it may appear at first blush, given the vagrancies of the Electoral College system, I could be elected President with only 13% of the nation-wide popular vote cast in 26 select states and the District of Columbia as detailed in the attached chart.

My primary platform is that power has been so concentrated in so few legislative and judicial hands, that the structure of the Federal government created by the Framers of the Constitution has been destroyed thereby destroying the protection of individual rights as well. As to the legislative structure, given that Congress has been unwilling since 1910 to dilute themselves of the power they have, I believe it is time for the States to call a Constitutional Convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution for the purpose of considering: (i) enfranchising the 600,000 tax-paying, presently disenfranchised District of Columbia residents, (ii) returning to the ideal of one Representative for every 30,000 citizens and (iii) repealing the 17th Amendment and returning election of United States Senators to State Legislatures to ensure proper representation of the interests of the States at the Federal legislative level.

As to the judicial structure, I believe the Rule of Law no longer exists in the federal Courts of the United States as evidenced by: (i) the oxymoron of the Supreme Court’s “discretionary jurisdiction” and the claimed right of the federal court to issue non-binding, unpublished opinions thereby violating equal protection and stare decisis, (ii) the federal grant to the American Bar Association of the status of “gate-keeper” of how law will be taught and who may become lawyers and (iii) the refusal to recognize those “retained” and “reserved” common law rights resident respectively in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Among those “retained” and “reserved” common law rights is: “the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not Wasted.” Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 130 (1922). Accordingly, I have filed this day in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a Quo Warranto suit seeking to oust Barrack Hussein Obama II as President of the United States and/or preventing him from holding the franchise of being on the ballot for that office on November 6, 2012, insomuch as he is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, §1, of the U.S. Constitution. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, that phrase was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (The Law of Nations, Emerich de Vattel, 1758, Chapter 19, § 212). Notably, there are thus two plain requirements: being born (i) in the United States and (ii) of two parents, both of whom must be United States citizens.

Significantly, Congress exercised its authority to expand the definition of “natural born Citizen” in the Act of 1790 stating: “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” 1 Stat. 104. Notably, Congress subsequently removed the legal-term-of-art “natural born Citizen” from all citizenship statutes post-1790 and now only confers “citizenship”. See: 8 U.S.C. §1401 – “Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”, “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth . . . “.

Barrack Hussein Obama, II has represented that he is the son of a non-citizen of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who was a citizen of the United Kingdom in 1961. Accordingly, upon the law and facts, Barack Hussein Obama, II is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully” holds – and seeks again to be elected to – the office of President of the United States.

Moreover, even allowing for an in futuro judicially-by-fiat-created definition of “natural born Citizen” to include one born within the United States to only one United States citizen parent, the significant questions concerning the location of the birth of Barrack Hussein Obama, II raised by his publicly released “Certificates of Live Birth” would nonetheless challenge his eligibility to be President of the United States. A detailed analysis of the apparent tampering with Barrack Hussein Obama, II’s putative “Certificates of Live Birth” is contained in the Quo Warranto lawsuit.

As to the “Why” I am seeking the office of President – despite the public abuse I knowingly am courting – my answer is the same as when I ran for District Attorney in Rochester, New York, in 1987 and is best summed up in Edmund Burke’s observation – “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Here, that “evil” is the departure from the Rule of Law which I have sworn to uphold, an oath I obviously takes seriously.

Me vs. The Supremes IV: Update #2

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:32:00 +0000

As expected, three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have – without allowing me to file a record on appeal or have oral argument – summarily affirmed the dismissal of my suit by the lower court. I have, of course, filed a motion for rehearing pointing out the intellectual hypocrisy of their order. The most glaring example holds that I cannot sue the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and then cites District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983) for the proposition that federal courts can not review Article I court’s decisions. Anyone notice the name of Appellant? Why can some people sue the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and others, like me, can not? Inquiring minds want to know.

Sibley vs. Obama and Holder -- Round #1 Goes to the Government

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:44:00 +0000

It comes as no surprise that the District Court ruled in favor of the government -- after all, the same name is on the paychecks of the government attorneys and the judge. The Order of Dismissal in essence held that I do not have standing to bring this suit as I am not "harmed". Instead, the judge implicitly indicated that I must be arrested first, then I can challenge the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act in the District of Columbia given the Congressionally-approved D.C. Medical Marijuana Act. Some choice!

I have, of course, asked the Court to reconsider given (i) the holding of the Supreme Court in Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union and (ii) the retaliatory action of the government in, I believe, coercing Wells Fargo Bank to close the bank account of my company, the Medical Marijuana Company of America, LLC.

More as this battle advances . . .

Sibley vs. Obama and Holder -- The Clerk's Chicanery

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:12:00 +0000

On August 16, 2011, I filed with the Clerk my First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. That Complaint sought to add Mayor Gray and the D.C. Department of Health as Defendants and sought from the Court a declaratory degree that these Defendants were violating my Fifth Amendment rights and the Supreme Court holding in Leary v. United States by requiring that I swear -- as part of the application -- that I would be violating federal law if I proceeded to grow medical marijuana pursuant to the D.C. Medical Marijuana Law.

To date, one week later, the Clerk has not filed that pleading as evidenced by the docket sheet dated August 23, 2011. Accordingly, I have filed a Petition for Mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seeking an order directing the Clerk to file those pleadings.

Obviously, more to come.

Sibley vs. Obama and Holder -- The Battle Intensifies

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:27:00 +0000

As the D.C. government slowly moves along the D.C. Medical Marijuana program, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates has not moved my case along at all. Since July 5th, the following has occurred in my lawsuit against President Obama and Eric Holder:

The government filed its motion to dismiss the lawsuit claiming that I didn't have standing.
I filed my Memorandum of Law in Opposition
The District of Columbia required all applicants for a medical marijuana cultivator's permit to swear under oath that they admit they are breaking federal law.
On August 16th, I filed my First Amended Complaint adding Mayor Gray and the D.C. Department of Health alleging that it would violate my Fifth Amendment right to refuse to incriminate myself if I have to admit that by cultivating marijuana in compliance with the D.C. Medical Marijuana Act I am still in violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act -- something I won't do. Along with the First Amended Complaint, I filed my Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stop the D.C. Department of Health from requiring that affidavit admitting guilt.

Now, and again, it is up to the Judge Bates to move this case along.

Sibley vs. Obama and Holder -- The first volleys

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:03:00 +0000

The government has filed its first pleading in this suit -- an objection to the motion for preliminary injunction. In sum, that objection claims that I don't have standing and that if an injunction is entered preventing the government from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in the District of Columbia to the extent it conflicts with the Congressionally-approved D.C. Medical Marijuana Act, it would prevent the: "DOJ from carrying out its law enforcement duties, could cripple its efforts across the country to enforce federal criminal laws and would have a much more profound effect on the public than the Plaintiff alleges.” (Defs. Opposition, p. 15). Gee, that was the whole idea!

My Reply to the Opposition more fully addresses the government's arguments. The ball is now in the judge's court but only he knows when he will rule.

Arizona Sues Department of Justice

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Sun, 29 May 2011 12:29:00 +0000

Proving that great minds think alike, on May 27, 2011, the governor of the State of Arizona and the attorney general of Arizona (right)filed a lawsuit very similar to mine against the Department of Justice. In sum, the lawsuit seeks a judicial decree telling the U.S. Government to mind its own business when it come to medical marijuana. A full report on that suit can be read in the AZ Capital Times. A copy of the filed lawsuit can be read here.

More as these two suits challenging the authority of the federal government move forward.

Sibley vs. Obama and Holder

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 18 May 2011 21:28:00 +0000

On May 17, 2011, I filed a federal lawsuit against Barrack Obama and Eric Holder, Jr. because my faith in the change that President Obama promised I now know was misplaced.

As against President Obama, the suit seeks an order from the federal judge that the President has breached his campaign promises to respect the state-authorized use of medical marijuana. Instead, he has authorizing the Department of Justice to prosecute under the Federal Controlled Substances Act anyone -- including the state employees who administer state medical marijuana laws -- who violates the Controlled Substances Act notwithstanding state approval for such medical use of marijuana.

As to Attorney General Eric Holder, the suit first seeks a declaratory decree that the federal government is without delegated authority to enforce the Controlled Substances Act raising grounds that have not fully been litigated heretofore: Whether the scope of: (i) the commerce clause, (ii) the limited power delegated to the federal government to punish, (iii) the Ninth Amendment and (iv) the Tenth Amendment, singularly and collectively limit the power of the federal government to enact and enforce any legislation regarding the use of medical marijuana.

Last, and most compelling, the suit seeks a declaratory decree that Congress has repealed in part by implication the Controlled Substances Act by its approval of the “Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Amendment Act of 2010” which authorized the cultivation, dispensing and use of marijuana for medical purposes in the District of Columbia. Simply put, Congress can’t both make marijuana possession illegal – as it is under the Controlled Substances Act – and make it legal – as it is under the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Amendment Act.

To expedite resolution of the last issue, I have filed and today served on Attorney General Holder a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to bar the Department of Justice from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in the District of Columbia pending resolution of this issue.

Questions, comments and concerns are always welcome. Needless to say, more on this suit from me as it develops.

154 Years Ago Today . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 12:09:00 +0000

The New York Times reported that the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). In that decision, the Times reported that the Court held, remarkably to our modern eyes, that "Negroes, whether slaves or free, that is, men of the African race, are not citizens of the United States by the Constitution."

Perhaps it is time to reexamine the unconstitutional but common notion that our Supreme Court Justices are infallible and unaccountable. I know Dred Scott's attorney -- my great, great grandfather Montgomery Blair -- did and, compelled by his sacrifice in doing so, so do I.

Jeane Palfrey, Elliot Spitzer and Me

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:07:00 +0000

I recently watched the documentary Client 9 – the story of the rise and fall of the former Governor of New York, Elliot Spitzer. He, who many thought would be our first Jewish President, fell from grace when his use of the Emperor’s Club Escort Service became known in March 2008.

Jeane and I were in the documentary. Client 9 raised the question as to why the Bush Department of Justice clearly went after the Democratic Elliot Spitzer in its prosecution of the Emperor’s Club employees but at the same moment in time went out of its way to protect the known – and other never publicly revealed – Republican patrons of Pamela Martin & Associates, Jeane’s escort service such as Senator Vitter and Harlan Ullman.

The answer is plain – the Department of Justice has become corrupted to the political aspirations of those in office. My answer: Return to the jury system to exclusive right to decide the law and facts and allow private attorney generals access to the grand jury now exclusively reserved to public prosecutors thus removing the excessive concentration of power in the Department of Justice.

1095 days and counting . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:56:00 +0000

Today marks the third anniversary of the conference the United States Supreme Court held in Sibley vs. Alito, et al, on January 4, 2008, and yet they have not rendered a decision. Why do I have to wait over three (3) years for a simple decision which -- if the Court is intellectually honest -- must admit that the Justices of the Supreme Court supremely violated equal protection, the doctrine of nemo judex parte sua and 28 U.S.C. 455.

By way of background:

In Montgomery Blair Sibley vs. The United States Supreme Court, The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal, Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Case Number: 05-459, on November 14, 2005, Defendants Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas joined in entering an order in that case denying my Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Yet, in Montgomery Blair Sibley vs. Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas, Case Number: 07-6522, these same Defendants on October 29, 2007, disqualified themselves from considering my Petition. In both instances, the Justices were named defendants in the respective complaints.

Accordingly, this differing treatment demanded explanation by the Court. Accord: “. . .the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). This obligation is particularly acute when exactly the same fact patterns result in diametrically opposed results.

So, why am I waiting?

Me vs. The Supremes IV: Update #1

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:49:00 +0000

The first procedural skirmishes in this lawsuit have begun. All the defendants have appeared through counsel and I have commenced my siege upon the judicial fortress by firing three shots into its barbican. Those shots are . . .

First, I have made a Motion to Disqualify the United States Attorney from Representing Defendant Justices and Defendants Rapp and Leon. I claim that the defendants named in this motion may not be represented by the United States Attorney. Simply stated, the United States Attorney may not represent a federal employee alleged to have acted outside the scope of their employment as I have alleged these Defendants have done. The government has failed to timely respond.

Second, I have made a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction enjoining and restraining the Defendant United States Marshals Service during the pendency of this action from escorting me inside the federal courthouse at U.S. Courthouse at 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. I have alleged that such "escorting" chills my First Amendment rights to petition the government and is retaliatory. Again, the government has failed to timely respond to this motion.

Last, I have made a Second Motion for a Preliminary Injunction enjoining and restraining the Defendant United States Supreme Court from refusing to accept for filing any petitions in noncriminal matters from me notwithstanding my failure to: (i) pay the docketing fee required by the Rules of the United States Supreme Court, Rule 38(a) or (ii) comply with the form requirements of Rules of the United States Supreme Court, Rule 33.1, when I am proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to the Rules of the United States Supreme Court, Rule 39. It costs over $2500 to file petitions for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court and I am challenging that intentionally high-set barrier to access that Court.

More as it occurs.

Me vs. The Supremes IV: A New Hope

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:38:00 +0000

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;

In peace there's nothing so becomes a man

As modest stillness and humility:

But when the blast of war blows in our ears,

Then imitate the action of the tiger;

Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,

Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;

Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;

Like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start.

The game's afoot.

Shakespeare's Henry V, Act III

Montgomery Blair’s Wine Cellar saves the Capital and the Union

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:02:00 +0000

I have recently been doing research at the Library of Congress on an issue that intrigues me when I came across two photographs which sent me on an historical frolic and detour to verify the truth of an old family story about Montgomery Blair's wine cellar, Jubal Early and the fate of the Capital.

Montgomery Blair was the eldest of Francis Preston Blair's four children. Born in Franklin County, Ky., Montgomery graduated from West Point in 1835. Having studied law in St. Louis, Mo., he became a U.S. attorney for that state and in 1842 at the age of 29, became the mayor of St. Louis.

Blair moved to Washington, D.C. in 1852, establishing his residence at Blair House, located on Pennsylvania Avenue diagonally across from the White House. In 1857 Blair served as counsel in the case of slave Dred Scott. Scott wanted to sue in federal court for his freedom and that of his wife after their master had moved them to Missouri, then free territory. (The case, argued before the Supreme Court, failed.)

Blair later served as President Abraham Lincoln's U.S. Postmaster General from 1861 to 1864. During his term Blair originated prepaid postage, free mail delivery in cities, money orders, and railway postal cars. In other words, he was the father of the 19th Century Internet and Modern Banking.

Two years after moving to Washington, Blair began construction of his summer estate in 1854 on land adjoining that of his father, Francis Preston Blair. Located just over a quarter of a mile to the northwest, Blair named his mansion “Falkland”. Built on a tree-covered hill, the front entrance faced north towards the present-day intersection of Colesville Road and East-West Highway.

On the afternoon of July 11, 1864, Lieutenant General Jubal Anderson Early sat astride his horse outside the gates of Fort Stevens in the upper Northwestern fringe of Washington, D.C. The 47-year-old Confederate, a veteran of Antietam, Gettysburg, the Wilderness and countless other fights, was about to make one of the Civil War's most portentous decisions: whether or not to order his 10,000 veteran troops to invade the United States capital.

He and his men were camped at Montgomery Blair’s Falkland estate. While Early considered his options his troops looted Blair’s wine cellar. Drunken soldiers ransacked the house, strewing papers and women’s clothing in their wake. Montgomery’s home, Falkland, was burned down. (See Photo above, double click for enlarged view).

As a result of the drunken delay, the Sixth Massachusetts arrived in Washington and immediately fortified Fort Stevens. A battled ensured at Fort Stevens and President Lincoln arrived to support the troops. As President Lincoln climbed the ramparts, a surgeon next to him was hit by a Confederate sharpshooter from 1000 yards away – making him the only President to face enemy fire.

Several people took credit for telling the President to take cover, including future Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Aunt Betty – the freed black slave whose house was demolished to make way for Fort Stevens. He did so but stayed to watch as the Union reinforcements were finally ordered over the walls to chase the enemy north.

Jubal Early and his troops were beaten back and they left the next day for Richmond.

Montgomery Blair's loss of his summer home proves the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. He would suffer through-out his life for representing Dred Scott.

An Account of Some Instances of the Practice of Former Times in Order to the Improvement of Justice and Safeguard of the Constitution

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:27:00 +0000

A dear colleague of mine has brought an interesting book to my attention: “An Account of fome Inftances of the Practice of Former Times in Order to the Improvement of Juftice and Safeguard of the Conftitution”. A copy of the 50 page book can be downloaded here.

Printed in 1716, the book starts with a description of how King Alfred (ruled 871-899) hanged 44 judges in one year for violating his law that decreed that judges who entered: “a morally falfe judgement, they be hang’d as any other murderers.”

Detailed descriptions of the hanging of judges by Edward the First and Edward the Third follow and the other punishments of Judges by Kings, Queens and Parliament. Perhaps the most effective deterrent was devised by a Persian King who had a corrupt judge put to death and made into pillow. He then ordered that the dead judge’s successor be ordered to sit on the pillow while on the bench. That is an effective inducement to a judge to be fair and impartial!

What all this really says is that the problems with judges go back to the beginning of our justice system and that we must – as ever generation before us has – be vigilant to the harm and misfortune that judges issuing “morally falfe judgement” can have on each of us. To that end, the idea of judicial immunity must be discarded so that judges can be held accountable for their actions.

A 19th Century American Hero

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:21:00 +0000

“My attention had been called to some Indians ahead by our scouts, and I spoke to General Custer about it. He told me to take the Indian scouts and go ahead and he would follow . . .”

At that moment, the 25th of June, 1876, my great, great, grandfather, Luther R. Hare, spoke the last words he ever would to General Custer on that fateful day of the Battle of the Little Big Horn. He subsequently gave testimony as to what transpired at the Little Big Horn and I have uploaded it for the curious: The Reno Court of Inquiry.

Later on, he participated in the Nez Perce War (1877), Battle of Wounded Knee (1890) and the Spanish-American War (Philippines Theater).

While with our 21st Century eyes, Luther Hare may seem a repugnant figure, in the 19th Century he was a hero and revered American Frontiersman and solider. As such, he deserves to be remembered as such.

So I do here.

How Judges React to Criticism

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Mon, 24 May 2010 13:32:00 +0000

The CNN story of California Attorney Richard Fine echoes my own. Criticize the Judges and they fabricate the history to stigmatize -- and incarcerate -- their critics. That is why our founding Fathers were careful to require juries -- not judges -- to determine guilt under the Sixth Amendment. But when the Court defines criminal charges in such a way that incarceration is available without criminal charges, no jury is necessary.

Supremes vs. Me, Part III

noreply@blogger.com (Montgomery Blair Sibley) — Fri, 21 May 2010 16:47:00 +0000

Ignoring every single argument raised in my 95 page Response to the Order to Show Cause, the Supreme Court entered its Order disbarring me on May 17, 2010, from practice before them.

I, of course, take exception to a Court that does not even read -- as their order implies -- let alone respond to the arguments raised in my filing challenging their disbarment of me. That is the essence of judicial tyranny against which I rail.

I am not sure, but I think a new lawsuit -- Sibley vs. The Supremes IV -- is in the offering . . .