Category Archives: Chief Justice

Montgomery Sibley D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records update April 6, 2016, Invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, Renewing Application with a second Justice, Clarence Thomas

Montgomery Sibley D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records update April 6, 2016, Invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, Renewing Application with a second Justice, Clarence Thomas

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“COMING CLEAN: From what I know, at least 2 of the women named as Cruz mistresses by the National Enquirer are accurate”…Drew Johnson, Twitter

 

From Montgomery Blair Sibley April 6, 2016.

“Yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts denied myApplication to be relieved from the Restraining Order which prohibits me from releasing any of the D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records.  This follows: (i) the refusal of the U.S. District Court to allow me to file a Motion to Modify that Restraining Order and (ii) the refusalof the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to rule upon my Petition which sought to Order the District Court Clerk to file my Motion to Modify.

Before I simply release the records in my possession, I must exhaust all judicial remedies. Accordingly, invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, I am renewing the Application with a second Justice, the estimable Clarence Thomas.  I will wait to see what he says before taking my next step.”

Read more:

http://amoprobos.blogspot.com/

Renewed application to SCOTUS:

http://montgomeryblairsibley.com/library/Clerk2a.pdf

Advertisements

Montgomery Blair Sibley US Supreme Court application for stay denied, April 5, 2016, DC Madam phone records to be released?, Sibley stated data could affect the 2016 presidential election

Montgomery Blair Sibley US Supreme Court application for stay denied, April 5, 2016, DC Madam phone records to be released?, Sibley stated data could affect the 2016 presidential election

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“COMING CLEAN: From what I know, at least 2 of the women named as Cruz mistresses by the National Enquirer are accurate”…Drew Johnson, Twitter

 

From NBC News April 5, 2016.

“SCOTUS Denies Request from D.C. Madam’s Attorney to Release Info

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request from a lawyer who once represented a woman known as the “DC Madam” to release records from her famous escort service.

Those records include such sensitive information as customer names, Social Security numbers and addresses— information the lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley, has said could affect the 2016 presidential election. The so-called DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey ran a high-priced escort service in the Washington D.C.-area for a number of years before her eventual conviction. She died in 2008.

Sibley wanted the Supreme Court to lift a lower court order, in place since 2007, that bars him from releasing any information about her records.

“Time is of the essence,” Sibley wrote in his latest Supreme Court filing.”

Read more:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/scotus-denies-request-dc-madam-s-attorney-release-info-n551121

 

Significance of McInnish V Chapman AL Supreme Court Decision, US Supreme Court ruling?, Justices Moore and Parker clarify state duties, Serious questions about Obama birth certificates

Significance of McInnish V Chapman AL Supreme Court Decision, US Supreme Court ruling?, Justices Moore and Parker clarify state duties, Serious questions
about Obama birth certificates

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

Regardless of how this plays out, we have ensconced in writing, on the internet and available for other legal reference and quotation, a document with well
researched dissenting opinions by the AL Chief Justice Moore and Justice Parker regarding the duties and responsibilities of state election officials.
Perhaps just as important is the mention of documentation provided by the Arpaio Zullo investigation raising serious questions about Obama birth
certificates.

Judge Parker wrote:

“(Case no. 1110665.) As I noted in my unpublished special concurrence to this Court’s order striking McInnish’s petition for a writ of mandamus: “McInnish
attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would
raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Obama that have been made
public.”

On March 6, 2012, the Secretary of State was served with McInnish’s petition for a writ of mandamus, including the attached documentation raising questions
about President Obama’s qualifications. That documentation served by McInnish on the Secretary of State was sufficient to put the Secretary of State on
notice and raise a duty to investigate the qualifications of President Obama before including him as a candidate on an Alabama election ballot.”

The McInnish V Chapman case should proceed to the US Supreme Court, the justices should rule and clarify the duties and roles of state election officials.
The poorly reasoned opinions of the consenting justices should be denigrated and the well reasoned, well written and constitutionally sound arguments of
Chief Justice Roy Moore should be upheld. This case, while highlighting eligibility deficiencies of Obama, focuses on the role of the AL Secretary of State,
and that is what the SCOTUS would focus on. The mootness aspect could also be addressed

Mootness could also be addressed by another case before the SCOTUS. Paige V State of Vermont. Central to this case is Obama’s natural born citizen status. If
this case is selected for full court review, we would expect a clarification of the definition of natural born citizen. This is mandatory as even many
constitutional scholars are divided on the definition.

We have in McInnish v Chapman, the most extensive and comprehensive delineation and definition of the duties of Alabama state election officials including
the Secretary of State. Many of us, including Citizen Wells, have addressed this adequately beginning in 2008. Though not rocket science, nor requiring a
legal degree to understand, it was beneficial to have a strong constitutional defender such as Chief Justice Moore to explain it with so much documentation.

To sum up the gist of Chief Justice Moore’s argument which is mine as well. Clearly the responsibility for presidential elections is that of the states up to
the certification of electoral college votes. The US Constitution requires that the president be a natural born citizen. The states are given some leeway in
procedural matters. The state laws and procedures vary considerably. There is no law stating that all presidential candidates must be preemptively
investigated to insure being qualified. However, since only a qualified candidate can legally be elected, it is imperative that the states take all
appropriate measures. The states in general have failed miserably at this. Some states have explicit laws and procedures to remedy a non qualified candidate.
Some have provisions for challenges. New Hampshire requires a natural born citizen certification.

From Justice Bolin:

“I concur with this Court’s no-opinion affirmance of this case. However, I write specially because I respectfully disagree with Chief Justice Moore’s dissent
to the extent that it concludes that the Secretary of State presently has an affirmative duty to investigate the qualifications of a candidate for President
of the United States of America before printing that candidate’s name on the general-election ballot in this State. I fully agree with the desired result;
however, I do not agree that Alabama presently has a defined means to obtain it.”

I read this with a certain amount of incredulity. After pondering it for a while I am wondering if this was intentional. A set up?

There are 2 simple steps that could have been and should have been taken. Immediately contact the AL Attorney General and request guidance. Get clarification
on the definition of natural born citizen and request a certified copy of the birth certificate. You know, one like I have a copy of, a copy of the original
certified by the governing office.

After comparing the ludicrous concuring opinions with the well reasoned, constitutionally sound opinion of Chief Justice Moore, one has to wonder if this was
a set up for the SCOTUS.

On the topic of mootness, I somewhat disagree with Chief Justice Moore as well others on remedies for removal of Obama if he is not qualified. Mootness only applies in the context of state duties since they did end with the electoral college certification. However, the clarification of state duties in AL and the other states is just as if not more important. Impeachment in the general since would apply but not in the presidential removal through congress. If Obama is not qualified he is not president. No ceremony or adulation by brainwashed school children effects that.

If Obama is not qualified, he should immediately be arrested and tried for treason.

Few are willing to state this, but it is the truth.

Of course with the Obama controlled USDOJ this would be tricky.

However, Eric Holder and others in the USDOJ were selected by Obama and perhaps they could be removed first.

Other states and state election officials should take notice. If Obama is proven to be ineligible, many of those officials have committed treason as well. Not to mention enablers like Nancy Pelosi, et al.

I and others contacted NC and other state election officials in 2008 as well as 2012 to warn them of probable Obama eligibility deficiencies. They were warned and have no excuse.

It is on the record now. From a state supreme court.

State election official duties.

Probable Obama eligibility deficiencies.

The results of the Arpaio Zullo investigation now take on more significance.

AL Supreme Court ruling March 21, 2014, McInnish V Chapman, Ruling and dissent

AL Supreme Court ruling March 21, 2014, McInnish V Chapman, Ruling and dissent

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

The Alabama Supreme Court has made a ruling on the Obama Eligibility case in McInnish V Chapman.

From initial reading there is a non affirmative ruling with significant dissent.

From Chief Justice Roy Moore’s dissenting conclusion.

“Although the plaintiffs’ request for relief is moot as to
the legality, conduct, and results of the 2012 election, under
the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to
mootness, the circuit court, in my view, should have granted
the petition for a writ of mandamus to the extent of ordering
the Secretary of State to implement the natural-born-citizen
requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in
future elections.

Furthermore, I believe the circuit court should have
granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the
Secretary of State to investigate the qualifications of those
candidates who appeared on the 2012 general-election ballot
for President of the United States, a duty that existed at the
time this petition was filed and the object of the relief
requested. Although the removal of a President-elect or a
President who has taken the oath of office is within the
breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of
the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the
electoral votes is a state function.

This matter is of great constitutional significance in
regard to the highest office in our land. Should he who was
elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the
remedy of impeachment is available through the United States
Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, McInnish and Goode,
can pursue this remedy through their representatives in
Congress.

For the above-stated reasons, I dissent from this Court’s
decision to affirm the judgment of the circuit court
dismissing this action on the motion of the Secretary of
State.”

https://acis.alabama.gov/displaydocs.cfm?no=565288&event=40Y0LG67K

Representative Sue Myrick’s office must demand impeachment of John Roberts, Roberts swore in ineligible Obama, Duty to Constitution

Representative Sue Myrick’s office must demand impeachment of John Roberts, Roberts swore in ineligible Obama, Duty to Constitution

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.”

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the
constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature;
the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the
case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention
of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the
constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising
under the constitution should be decided without examining the
instrument under which it arises?  This is too extravagant to
be maintained.”

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Chief Justice Marshall opinion, Marbury versus Madison

Reported on Citizen Wells on February 9, 2009.

“From Sue Myrick’s office.
Polk, Andy :Andy.Polk@mail.house.gov

“ohhh- I understand it correctly based on US Supreme Court cases interpreting
what “natural born citizen” Constitutionally means.  Had he not met the
definition, Chief Justice Roberts, the worlds leading Constitutional scholar,
would not have sworn him in because he would have violated his duty to uphold
the Constitution.  You can argue with me all you want on this issue, but I can
do nothing for you on this point.  The only thing you can do, if you feel so
strongly about Obama not being a citizen, is file a lawsuit in federal court.””

As reported, an email was sent to Sue Myrick’s office on February 5, 2009 and no reponse was received.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/representative-sue-myrick-united-states-congressman-nc-representative-andy-polk-aide-polk-obama-ineligible-us-constitution-congress-electoral-votes-north-carolina-constituents-the-why-init/

The following are facts:

  • The governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, has found no record of a birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii.
  • Tim Adams, a elections clerk in Hawaii in 2008, has signed an affidavit stating that there was no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii in 2008.
  • Obama, for well over 2 years, has employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records.

Since Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has failed in his duty to uphold and defend the US Constitution by failing to interpret and clarify the natural born citizen clause and more seriously, swearing in Obama, who was clearly not eligibible to be president, he should be impeached. Andy Polk of Sue Myrick’s office stated “he would have violated his duty to uphold the Constitution. ” He did!

Representative Sue Myrick, are you going to do your sworn duty to uphold the US Constitution?

Sue Myrick contact info:

Washington Office
230 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-1976
Fax: (202) 225-3389

Charlotte Office
6525 Morrison Blvd. Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28211
Phone: (704) 362-1060
Fax: (704) 367-0852

Gastonia Office
197 West Main Avenue
Gastonia, NC 28052
Phone: (704) 861-1976
Fax: (704) 864-2445

Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, Because a Constitutional crisis is just what this nation needs right now

Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, Because a Constitutional crisis is just what this nation needs right now

“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

When I heard Glenn Beck insult millions of concerned Americans and military officers on his radio show, I thought that was one of the most insensitive, stupidest things I had ever heard. Is Eric Zorn related to Glenn Beck? Do they both have the stupid gene?

From Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune November 24, 2010.

“Because a Constitutional crisis is just what this nation needs right now”

“And since one must be a “natural-born citizen” to be president and   Barack Obama’s father was not, as everyone acknowledges,  a U.S. citizen, the whackjobs who have been unsuccessful in their “he was born in Kenya!” effort, are now hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court will help in their cause to declare him ineligible to hold office.”

Read more:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/11/vattel.html

On the one hand, for a micro second, I want to congratulate Zorn for mentioning the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit being before the Supreme Court. But that feeling quickly evaporates when I digest the way he dismissed those questioning Obama as being “whackjobs.” He displays a total lack of understanding about Obama’s eligibility issues and the Kerchner case.

First of all, we don’t know where in the hell Obama was born, since he has avoided presenting a legitimate birth certificate. Secondly, Zorn has got some nerve calling a retired naval commander, LTC Terry Lakin, multiple generals and millions of concerned Americans “whackjobs.”

Eric Zorn, we have a constitutional crisis now, due to people like you in the media not doing your journalistic job.

Eric Zorn, call me. Get your facts straight before making an ass out of yourself.

Eric Zorn, why don’t you ask the question above?

Mario Apuzzo interview, Supreme Court confers Kerchner v Obama, Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity Lou Dobbs question Obama’s eligibility

Mario Apuzzo interview, Supreme Court confers Kerchner v Obama, Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity Lou Dobbs question Obama’s eligibility

From  Tim Bueler, early this morning, November 24, 2010.

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
24 November 2010

CONTACT: Tim Bueler
media@timbueler.com
(530) 401-3285

WND EXCLUSIVE: U.S. SUPREME COURT CONFERS ON OBAMA ELIGIBILITY

Conducting interviews on this topic is the Washington, D.C staff writer for WND.com, Brian Fitzpatrick.

Is president a ‘natural-born citizen’ as Constitution requires?

By Brian Fitzpatrick
(c) 2010 WND.com

WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a “natural-born citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the “Vattel theory,” which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term “natural-born citizen” to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

“This case is unprecedented,” said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. “I believe we presented an ironclad case. We’ve shown standing, and we’ve shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There’s nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari.”

If the Supreme Court decides to grant the “writ of certiorari,” it may direct a federal trial court in New Jersey to hear the merits of the case, or it may choose to hear the merits itself. The court’s decision on the writ could be announced as early as Wednesday.

If any court hears the merits of the case, Apuzzo says it will mark the “death knell” for Obama’s legitimacy.

“Given my research of what a natural-born citizen is, he cannot be a natural-born citizen so it’s a death knell to his legitimacy. What happens on a practical level, how our political institutions would work that out, is something else,” Apuzzo told WND.

Apuzzo observed it is “undisputed fact” that Obama’s father was a British subject.

A hearing on the merits “is also a death knell because it would allow discovery so we would be able to ask him for his birth certificate, and we don’t know what that would show,” according to Apuzzo. “We might not even get to the question of defining ‘natural-born citizen.’ If he was not born in the U.S., he’d be undocumented, because he’s never been naturalized. We don’t even know what his citizenship status is. Hawaii has said they have his records, but that’s hearsay. We have not seen the root documents.”

Another attorney who has brought Obama eligibility cases to the Supreme Court, Philip Berg, agrees that discovery would sink Obama’s presidency.

“If one court had guts enough to deal with this and allow discovery, Obama would be out of office,” Berg told WND. “We would ask for a lift of Obama’s ban on all of his documents. The last official report said Obama has spent $1.6 million in legal fees [keeping his papers secret], and the total is probably over $2 million now. You don’t spend that kind of money unless there’s something to hide, and I believe the reason he’s hiding this is because he was not born in the United States.”

“The Supreme Court has never decided to hear the merits of an eligibility case,” Berg added. “If the Supreme Court would decide to hear a case, Obama would be out of office instantly. If Congress decided to hear a case, Obama would be out of office.”

“They’re taking a different approach, arguing that both parents must be citizens,” Berg noted.

Apuzzo is arguing the “Vattel theory,” which asserts that the term “natural-born citizen” as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, “The Law of Nations,” was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.

According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term “natural-born citizen” has never been altered.

“The courts and Congress have never changed the definition,” said Apuzzo. “The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him.”

Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel’s definition of “natural-born citizen” in “dicta,” or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the 1814 “Venus” case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel’s definition.

Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel.

Previous cases challenging Obama’s eligibility have all been rejected on technical grounds. Numerous courts have decided that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to bring a suit against Obama because they have failed to prove they are directly injured by his occupation of the Oval Office.

“To me that’s false,” said Berg. “The 10th Amendment refers to ‘we the people.’ If the people can’t challenge the president’s constitutionality, that would be ridiculous.”

“My clients have a right to protection from an illegitimately sitting president,” said Apuzzo. “Every decision he makes affects the life, property, and welfare of my clients.”

Apuzzo said the founding fathers had good reason to require the president to be a natural-born citizen.

“They were making sure the President had the values from being reared from a child in the American system, and thereby would preserve everybody’s life, liberty and property in the process.

“They made that decision, so my clients have every right to expect the president to be a natural-born citizen. It goes to all your basic rights, every right that is inalienable. The president has to be a natural-born citizen.”

Link to Article: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=232073

Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh have all questioned Obama’s birth certificate, natural born citizen status and eligibility to be president. Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh stated the following on his radio show:

“The imposter got into the equivalent of the White House in Afghanistan. Did they not ask this guy for some kind of identification? They clearly didn’t. They clearly didn’t ask this guy for his birth certificate. How in the world could they trust in a leader and even give money to somebody who has not been properly vetted? Well, because it happened here in the United States. We have an imposter for all intents and purposes serving in the White House.”