Yet another judicial defeat for an 'innovative' birther

www.courthousenews.com...

Sibley took a different approach in making his birther allegations, claiming that his write-in candidacy for this year's upcoming presidential election is injured by Obama's unconstitutional occupation of office and the listing of his name on ballots in November.

I do give him credit for some out of the box thinking, however unfounded.

But U.S. District Judge John Bates wrote: "As Chief Judge Lamberth recently stated with respect to a similar suit, '[t]his Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills.'" He dismissed all of Sibley's claims against Obama, Holder, the Department of Justice and the U.S. Marshals Service.

But wait, there's more

Bates last year threw out claims from Sibley that the District of Columbia violated his Fifth Amendment rights by making him file an affidavit recognizing that growing marijuana in any capacity violates federal law. Sibley said the affidavit hurt Sibley's budding career in medicinal marijuana cultivation and dispensary operations, business he called The Medical Marijuana Company of the District of Columbia and The Medical Marijuana Company of America. Bates ruled that Sibley had to legally admit that growing pot violates federal law.

In 2008, Sibley was suspended from practicing law in Washington, D.C., and Florida for three years. In addition to representing the D.C. Madam, Sibley's list of former clients includes Larry Sinclair, who claimed to have had gay sex with President Obama when Obama was a state senator.

I wish somebody would make a tv reality series about birthers. A comedy of course.

Originally posted by oghamxx
www.courthousenews.com...



I wish somebody would make a tv reality series about birthers. A comedy of course.

Yes because it is so incredibly funny, the idea of trying to ensure the Constitution is upheld.

reply to post by micmerci


I know Micmerci... I'm in stitches thinking about how "Funny" it is that the courts don't care about the Constitution. And how "Funny" it is that Congress doesn't care about the Constitution. And how "Funny" it is that the left doesn't care about the Constitution. It is a totally hilarious prospect!

What really has me on the floor busting my sides is that this judge dismisses it all as "Tilting at windmills"... seeing as how he has obviously viewed Obama's original birth certificate in the Hawaiian archives. Because there couldn't be any law enforcement officer anywhere in the country who may have "probable cause" for the courts to engage in discovery. Oh wait... Joe Arpaio. And of course there's never been a document expert testify that the online pdf of the birth certificate is a likely forgery. Oh wait... there's dozens of them!

When it does all come out... and it will... I'm going to personally kick the snot out of every person I come across that mocked "Birthers".

reply to post by kozmo


Oh Kozmo...that's hilarious, crazy talk, you silly birther! /sarcasm

BTW the ratings on that show would beat the Kardashians!!

I have to agree.. Using the constitution as toiled paper in the white house is a much better way to go. Hell why dont we go ahead and see if the British want to come back and rule the new world again.

reply to post by micmerci


Does anybody place any blame on Chief Justice Roberts for administering the oath of office? Why not?

Has anybody filed charges against him for violating his oath of office? Why not?

Because birthers are hypocritical cry baby losers!

Originally posted by oghamxx
reply to post by micmerci

 

Does anybody place any blame on Chief Justice Roberts for administering the oath of office? Why not?

Has anybody filed charges against him for violating his oath of office? Why not?

Because birthers are hypocritical cry baby losers!

Do you think before you post or does your illogical brain just cause you to vomit incoherent thoughts? The Supreme Court does NOT bring cases before itself.

reply to post by kozmo


My dearest, while it is rarely a court of original jurisdiction, the supreme court is essentially a court of appeals. The violation of his oath would have to start at a lower court and, when you lose being unable to 'prove' your birther charges, then appeal to the SC wherein Roberts would be expected to recuse himself. If convicted in his own court that IMO would be enough to remove him from the court for a behavioral problem.

I do hope my brilliant logic does not escape your keen mind.

BTW I never vomit, I spew!

reply to post by oghamxx


Well, I do appreciate you spewing your explaination. Now that I understand your approach, I am better equipped to comment on it.

First, I don't believe the Chief Justice has the discretion to administer the Oath of Office. It is his duty. It is also not his duty to affirm that a candidate or candidate-elect meets the criteria set forth in the Constitution to be eligible - unless of course it appears on the Scotus docket. That responsibility also lies elsewhere.

To your point though, I believe others HAVE tried to go after other parties and lesser courts continue to dismiss due to lack of standing (Which in and of itself is an outrage!).

reply to post by kozmo




I have duly noted your beliefs. Mine differ in that I believe it is/was Roberts foremost duty to honor his own oath. IMO that duty gives him the discretion which you would deny him. IMO he could have discreetly advised Obama well in advance that he would not administer the oath until he saw some proof to settle the birth issue. That at least is what I would have done. No 'trial', just convince me that I would not be violating my oath. No proof then no oath then probably Biden steps up.

And yes, lack of standing is a cop out right up there with 'not in the best public interest'.

Sorry but I still find MOST birthers very entertaining in a very funny way. Not the issue, it is most serious, but rather the knee jerk people. You appear to be a cut above them. Thanks for the discourse.

reply to post by oghamxx


Thanks oghamxx! It's fair that we disagree.

I'm not certain, once again, that this level of discretion would have been available to Chief Justice Roberts.

As an aside... the following is the Oath of Office that John Roberts took:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

When you evaluate the oath, it is plain to see that he is not obligated to "police" in favor of the Constitution, but rather to administer justice post hoc. Again, I hear what you are saying, and in principle, agree with you from a personal perspective. But from the more professional "Decorum and standards" of professional conduct perspective, I don't believe that Chief Justice Roberts had the discretion as he had already sworn to "Faithfully discharge the duties of the office..." Including swearing in the President-elect.

So, difficult conundrum here...

reply to post by kozmo


Difficult indeed. Virgin territory.

Then there is '... shall be eligible to the Office of President...'

TO the office! What does that mean? To run for or to hold?

IMO run for places the fault with those who put him on the ballot. where hold puts it on Roberts.

I find immense comfort in that IMO I am not at fault as I have taken no oath nor voted!

I wasn't in America when some Jewish woman gave, what can only be described as the biggest s*** of all time. So ultimately I don't know whether to say he's Kenyan or exterrestrial. However he's...

White
Republican
An expander of Military Industrial Complex
And a false prophet

And for these reason alone, he should be deported to the African wasteland.

Also: If a US court throws something out, 9 out of 10 times it's probably only the truth! However I'd readily agree it's perfectly possible, that Obama submitted a forged birth certificate, to the media, just to waste more of his enemies time. Honestly: It's what I would have done, if I was him!

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by oghamxx
www.courthousenews.com...



I wish somebody would make a tv reality series about birthers. A comedy of course.

Yes because it is so incredibly funny, the idea of trying to ensure the Constitution is upheld.

I'm FAR more concerned with SOPA, NDAA, the Patriot Acts, illegal acts of war, the CIA in war zones, drone strikes on countries we have not declared war against, The Supreme Court ruling corporations have the same rights as people, and a laundry list of other things before i pretend that this utter nonsense about Obama's Birth Certificate is anything other than a sideshow for the stupid.

Originally posted by micmerci

Yes because it is so incredibly funny, the idea of trying to ensure the Constitution is upheld.

The courts ARE upholding the constitution when they throw the silly birther cases out...