Main Menu

Archive | December, 2012

Sibley subpoena for Obama college records

Photo of Montgomery Blair SibleyObamaReleaseYourRecords reports that Montgomery Blair Sibley (right) has subpoenaed  “all records” for Barack Hussein Obama, II, and Barry Soetoro held by Occidental College, in the lawsuit Sibley v. Alexander, and has referenced a copy of the subpoena from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Alexander is a presidential elector from the District, and I wrote about this case last month.

Rule 45 of the District of Columbia Superior Court Civil Procedure Rules covers subpoenas. Because the rules require court approval to serve a subpoena more than 25 miles from the District, Sibley filed a motion on November for the Court to appoint an “out of state examiner.” As of today, there is no indication that the Court had ruled on this motion. Also, because the records sought are protected by statute, Sibley filed a motion yesterday (December 3) asking the Court to order the protected records released. I do not know if the subpoena has actually been served. Sibley is an attorney (as I understand suspended from practice) and I will presume he knows how to get a document served. The subpoena itself will not stand because of 45(c)(3)(A)(iii) which says: “On timely motion, the Court shall quash or modify the subpoena if it … requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies” and of course education records other than dates of attendance are protected by statute.

Recall that Orly Taitz was required to pay $4,000 in attorney costs to Occidental College for an unreasonable subpoena to Occidental College. The DC rules provide:

45(c)(1) A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The Court shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reasonable attorney’s fee.

There is nothing of relevance that Occidental College could tell the Court in this case, since Sibley does not allege that Obama is a foreigner, only that his father was.

What is of extra interest is that the place of delivery for the records specified is the law offices of an attorney in California named Taitz.


According to ORYR, Sibley says that the subpoena image came from Orly Taitz and represents only a draft. Here’s what he is quoted as saying:

"No it is not valid. Orly has run off prematurely. I did consult her about domesticating my DC Subpoena in California, but she only received a draft subpoena, not the one I have issued. So please disregard her posting.
In truth, I have issued subpoenas to Columbia, Occidental, Harvard Law, Social Security Administration, Selective Service Administration and the National Archives. Orly has nothing to do with those subpoenas. Service is pending and I will update everyone once I know whether service was successful." – Montgomery Sibley

Meanwhile, there is still no indication on the Court docket that any order regarding access to protected records has been issued. An Internet commenter under the name “A Real Lawyer” wrote:

A lawyer, even a disbarred lawyer like Sibley, should know that records cannot be obtained from federal agencies (SSA, SSS, National Archives) via subpoena. They must be requested through FOIA and if the agency denies the request, then a FOIA suit must be brought in the FEDERAL court, not a local court such as the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.

The Superior Court lacks enforcement power over federal agencies. Sibley knows this and is banking on the birthers to not understand his sleight of hand. Further, the DC Superior Court has no jurisdiction over Columbia or Occidental.

Docket entries for the case as of 1 PM December 5:

Continue Reading →

Tag team: Taitz + Apuzzo

imageA most curious article title [Link to Taitz site] appeared on the Orly Taitz blog a few days back. It said: “Update: I talked to attorney Mario Apuzzo, he stated, he will assist as much as he can.” I could hardly let that pass without comment.

I must admit that the first thought that came to mind was “poor Mario.” Partnerships with Taitz tend to go badly because she exhibits no respect for the other party and has no concept of confidentiality (like posting on the Internet that she had talked to Apuzzo). Taitz and Berg are involved in a messy lawsuit, former client Connie Rhodes said she was going to file a bar complaint against Taitz because Taitz filed actions on behalf of Rhodes without authorization, a major feud erupted between her and her co-counsel Gary Kreep, and now Taitz is petitioning the court to issue sanctions against her co-plaintiff Leah Lax in Mississippi. Apuzzo, on the other hand, seems arrogant and dismissive of others. There would seem to me to be a distinct personality conflict.

Apuzzo, for his part, has largely ignored Taitz on his blog except to note once that an article on her site is something that he actually wrote. On the other hand Taitz did mention Apuzzo in a substantive way, criticizing him [Link to Taitz web site] for that silly article saying that Obama was really Bari Shabazz and the son of Malcolm X.

Usually in a collaboration, one plays upon the strengths of the other. In this case we have one attorney whose evidence (copied from the Internet) has been rejected by multiple courts and another whose legal theories have been labeled as “without merit”  by others. I don’t see that as a combination for success. Any bets as to how long it will take Taitz to add Apuzzo to her RICO complaint?

WorldNetDaily: Majority of readers say Obama eligibility a vital issue

In an article by Bub Unruh published yesterday at WorldNetDaily, a reader poll was included asking: “Is the question of Obama’s eligibility a dead issue?”

One must have an account and login at WorldNetDaily to vote in their polls, so these 874 respondents might be considered the “hard core” WND types. Essentially 100% (all but 5) said it was not a dead issue. The most popular answer (58%) said:

No, this is a question of vital constitutional significance – we ignore it at our peril

I left this comment:

The reader poll is a hoot. It says a lot about WorldNetDaily when essentially 100% of the respondents supported a nut-case conspiracy theory. Yes folks, the bottom of the barrel is right here.

Mississippi boiling

The media is catching up with the fact that Orly’s California case was dismissed after she had to pay costs of $4,000 to Occidental College for that bum subpoena. OC Weekly, which has some of the best Taitz local coverage reported the money quote from Judge Marginis to Taitz: “You should know that evidence is not stuff printed from the Internet.” (We’ll see below that Taitz did not grasp this concept since it undermines her entire legal strategy.) The following comment was made on that article:

DaxDax: How this woman hasn’t gotten serious sanctions and some disciplinary action via the Ca State Bar is beyond me.

The thing that’s more likely to get serious sanctions and a Bar disciplinary action isn’t what happened in California, but what is unfolding in Mississippi, as Taitz continues to amaze with a new filing that discloses email exchanges between her and Leah Lax, compounding the case even further.

First, a reminder of where the case stands. The Hawaii Defendants have moved to be dismissed from the case on several grounds. The Democratic Defendants have move for judgment on the pleadings. A hearing was held last month on those motions.

Since the hearing a small flurry of documents have been filed. Taitz filed her opposition to the dismissal and judgment in a “Supplemental response” pancakes and all. Taitz subsequently filed an Amended supplemental response that I haven’t yet read.

The Mississippi Attorney General on behalf of the Secretary of State has filed a “Supplemental brief” in response to Taitz’ Supplemental response, calling it a bunch of hooey (my words). It’s not groundbreaking, but it does catalog Taitz’ ineptitude and lack of candor. The Hawaii defendants have filed a “Supplemental brief” too. And there are briefs from the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee and from the National Democratic defendants: Obama, Pelosi and Obama for America.

All of this filing and briefing and supplementing is work for the attorneys, and they have to be paid. If the judge can be convinced that Taitz is vexatiously or unnecessarily making the case more complicated, she can be asked to pay those attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and that could turn out to be a staggering amount.

Laurie Roth and Leah Lax, both putative plaintiffs in the case have written letters to the Court asking that they be excused, and that provides the second threat to Taitz. Lax claims that Taitz drug her into the case without her intention and misrepresented those intentions, and that she faked her signature on the complaint. Now Taitz in retaliation has written a 58-page response to Lax that includes dumps of emails between the two of them, made barely legible by Orly’s crappy scanner. It even contains 14 pages of a hexadecimal encoded PDF file, purportedly a signature page signed by Lax. Taitz also discloses the “Confidential settlement” offer from the Democratic Defendants to Taitz.

In the “Response” Taitz denies that she “pasted” Lax’s signature on the “First amended complaint.” The signature page from Lax was filed with the court, but I didn’t know this because the Jack Ryan copy of it is labeled “Brian Fedorka” (which is the line where she signed it). Taitz says that she shouldn’t be sanctioned—Lax should!

Conservative Fact Check ousts TechDude

Approximately 4 years after everyone else on the Internet learned that the pseudonymous “document expert” TechDude faked his credentials by copying the real qualifications of someone else, the Conservative Fact Check web site also figured it out and removed TechDude from its masthead yesterday.

I left this reply:

While the association between Adam Fink and TechDude is well known, and has been so since imaging expert Neal Krawetz published it in August of 2008, the best information I have is that TechDude is not impersonating Adam Fink; he IS Adam Fink. Fink denied this, but the evidence is pretty solid to the contrary.

So we have TechDude who either lied about his credentials, or lied about not being Adam Fink.

The relevant point is that whoever he is, his image analysis of Obama’s original birth certificate image was a fraud. He deliberately altered the image to make it look suspicious and this was fully covered in  Dr. Krawetz’ article.

I did a little searching here, and found other examples of obvious lies by TechDude.

Any serious observer knew in 2008 that TechDude was a liar and a fraud. The fact that this web site relies on him goes to how credulous and inept this site is.

For real fact checking on Obama eligibility issues, read this:

The Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories

When I last visited the TechDude issue, the conventional wisdom was that this person had stolen the credentials of a real document expert name Adam Fink. TechDude was discredited and the birthers dumped him, except for this Conservative Fact Check site (who apparently checks nothing). However, someone posting as G at the Barackryphal web site did further research, reporting the conclusion that TechDude and Fink were one and the same.

Another site for the Ugly list.

Blog technical difficulties

The blog is having technical difficulties with the Internet Explorer 9 browser, resulting in articles with quotations having part of the text obscured by huge quotation marks.

Please use the Firefox or Google Chrome browsers until this is fixed (and this article is deleted).

To download Firefox visit Sorry for this temporary inconvenience.


This has been temporarily resolved by removing the quotes altogether.