Write-in presidential candidate Montgomery Blair Sibley, who filed and lost a number of federal lawsuits against Barack Obama already, was back in court again yesterday. Which flavor of birther ice cream are we having today? “Please sir, I would like one scoop of quo warranto and one of declaratory judgment.”
Scoop 1: Sibley v. Obama
This is the 4th incarnation of Sibley’s attempts in DC federal court to keep Obama out of office. The case is number 1:12-cv-01832-RLW and the complaint was reported by the press releases web site SBWire. Like some failed birther lawsuits before it, this one is a quo warranto action, a demand that Obama prove he has a right to hold the office of President. Mario Apuzzo failed this gambit in Kerchner v. Obama, and Orly Taitz has also poisoned that well:
Taitz v. Obama, 754 F. Supp. 2d 57, 78 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 207 (D.D.C. 2010) as precedent to say “[o]nly the Attorney General may bring a quo warranto action against a public official.”
Mr. Sibley, a disbarred attorney, ought to have addressed this precedential case from the same DC court where the instant case is being filed. For reference, the complaint alleges that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery based on a number of false statements of fact, plus he makes the claim that US President must have two US Citizen parents, which is a false statement of law.
Scoop 2: Sibley v. Alexander, Dinan & Lightfoot
The complaint was filed in D. C. Superior court as a class action against the Electoral College members to prevent them from voting for an “ineligible” candidate. The named defendants (Alexander, Dinan and Lightfoot) are members of the EC.
The Electoral College suit is more compact (10 pages). Here the argument is simplified by only claiming the President is not a natural born citizen because his father wasn’t a US Citizen. He wrote:
Accordingly, a priori, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” as required to be eligible to be President of the United States under Article II, §1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as he is not the child of two United States citizen parents.
The Latin a priori refers to knowledge that precedes experience, and in the context here it is a fancy word for “begging the question.” I think that it is less common for a single plaintiff to sue a class of defendants, but there are examples including the landmark case of Landeros v. Flood that was filed to change the behavior of doctors in California.