Another one bites the dust
The sun rose today, birds mobbed the feeder, and another birther lawsuit was dismissed. Write-in presidential candidate Montgomery Blair Sibley filed suit in DC District Court attempting to oust Barack Obama from office with a quo warranto lawsuit, bar him from the ballot, and make a grand jury presentation, also asserted an unrelated Bivens claim. For more information on the history of the case, see my articles on Sibley.
The court, disinterested in going too far into the nuttiness of the case cited precedent:
The court [grants] defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to each of the plaintiff’s myriad unmeritorious claims. As Chief Judge Lambert recently stated with respect to a similar suit, ‘[t]his Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills. Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (2011).
I find it interesting that nowadays courts are citing decisions in other birther cases, where as previously they cited other decisions. In this instance, besides the cute remark above, we see substantive citations from Kerchner v. Obama, Drake v. Obama, Berg v. Obama, and Barnett v. Obama.
Devvy Kidd won’t be happy about this. She was plugging Sibley’s case just last month.
http://www.rense.com/general95/mont_dev.html
Anybody who has been keeping up with the legal decisions in past quo warranto lawsuits would know that the Sibley claim was doomed from the start. As the court said here, only the US Attorney or the Attorney General can bring a quo warranto action. That’s a longstanding precedent in the DC Circuit. Period. End of story.
And then there is Sibley’s well-documented checkered past. A docket search on the SCOTUS website turned up 43 hits with his name, and he was slapped down by SCOTUS IN 2010:
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1.
The courts are now citing to birther cases simply because there is now a body of precedence to cite to. Before, the courts needed to explain their decisions based on earlier law. Now that this has been done, there is no need to reinvent the wheel every time the birthers regurgitate their tired claims.
Isn’t it beautiful? Especially when a judges quote each other’s zingers. 😉
Thast has to hurt …. and reference the birthers suspicion of collusion. They’re all in it together! System is rigged. Well, birthers, thanks to all your hard work … … now it really is “rigged”.
Question for the lawyers: Is there a way that a Federal circuit could simply ban all birther lawsuits in its jurisdiction?
I know it would deprive all of us of a lot of fun but at some point enough has to be enough.
Is it possible?
Doc. C
In addtion to another one bites the dust, I would like to submit the following.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZdY9rw-uo
I think you mean “uninterested,” not “disinterested.”
Courthouse News came out with an article on the Sibley dismissal today.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/12/47355.htm
A revelation is that Sibley once represented none other than writer Larry (Obama gay sex) Sinclair!
Montgomery Blair Sibley Birther Lawsuit: Former D.C. Madam Lawyer Files New Challenge
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/montgomery-blair-sibley-birther-lawsuit-presidential-candidate_n_1590582.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics